[2643] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christalee Bieber)
Tue Oct 17 12:16:53 2006
In-Reply-To: <A475072E-8D68-4D29-A2FE-B18697BC27FB@mit.edu>
From: Christalee Bieber <cbieber@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:16:12 -0400
To: Adam Seering <aseering@mit.edu>
Cc: Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>, mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
Is this process being developed partly or entirely in response to the
recent kerfluffle over the Logs not sharing their UA-funded recording
studio with other a capella groups? Just out of curiosity, as it
might explain why everyone seems to have a different scenario in mind
in this debate. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, the Senate
meeting minutes for 10/16 have the details.)
peace
christalee
On Oct 17, 2006, at 12:02 PM, 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.
>
> 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.
>
>> 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?
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> Adam
> _______________________________________________
> MIT-talk mailing list
> MIT-talk@mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
