[2641] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexander J Werbos)
Tue Oct 17 12:05:34 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:04:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>
To: mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Adam Seering wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2006, at 11:20 AM, Alexander J Werbos wrote:
>
>> I see the creation of a process whereby one or several student groups can
>> petition the UA for the reallocation of materiel being used by another
>> student group.
> ...
>>
>> This ensures:
> ...
>> 2) That the UA doesn't go nosing where it doesn't belong.
>
> Why do you think the UA belongs here? It's not actively involved already;
> any equipment sharing could be handled exclusively between student groups
> without any UA involvement, at least in theory.
>
> Why doesn't the group in question just go to the group with the resource and
> try to work out an arrangement to share the unit equipment in question?
> Reasonable people should be able to work out an agreement that's fair for
> both sides, without the rather-large overhead of the UA.
For the very same reason any civil society has judges. Because sometimes people
just won't get along.
> If people are being unreasonable, a group (possibly the UA) could act as an
> arbiter to smooth things out. You're not suggesting arbitration, though;
> you're proposing that the UA act as a power amplifier to let groups take
> stuff from other groups (and that the UA gain the power to act as a
> power-amplifier in this way). This strikes me as a recipe for abuse and bad
> feelings.
No, I am very much speaking about the UA being an arbitrator. Just one that
happens to have power at its disposal. Toothless arbitration is what wastes
time and creates overhead.
>> 1) The resource being discussed is not being used to its fullest
>> efficiency by the group currently controlling it
>
> This seems like a reasonable criteria. How would you propose judging it,
> though?; I don't see a clear way where you could show, to everyone's
> agreement, that it has been met. Could this be more specific?
That would be determined by the UA facilitators. Upon consideration, this might
be a great thing for the Judcomms to be used for.
I don't think I *can* be more specific. Can you suggest a general,
cross-spectrum standard for efficiency?
>> 2) Another group can demonstrate a compelling use for this resource
>
> I'd agree with that. "compelling" is open to a little more interpretation
> than I'd like, but, not too bad overall.
Thanks.
>> 3) The reallocation of the resource will not seriously impact the group
>> currently controlling it
>
> "I don't like The Tech; I don't think it's using its office computers
> efficiently. They can clearly make do with Athena-cluster computers; there's
> lots of software on Athena."
>
> I don't know if The Tech's actually a valid example, but hopefully you get
> the idea.
I think I do. Anyone would laugh that request right out of W20-400. As well
they should.
-Alex
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
