[2644] 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 12:21:00 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:20:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>
To: Christalee Bieber <cbieber@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <27C1BE40-5EBF-4A79-A7BC-2F538515190B@mit.edu>
Cc: Adam Seering <aseering@mit.edu>, mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
I raised the question in response to the Logs issue, yes. But the general
case is very important. Rather than simply cobbling together an ad-hoc,
localized-thinking solution, I'd rather people step back and take a look
at the larger issues. This is something that needs to be carefully
considered.
-Alex
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Christalee Bieber wrote:
> 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
