[2650] 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 12:51:22 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:50:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>
To: Adam Seering <aseering@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <2F181E3C-B967-46EF-A8DA-264BA0C0DAB5@mit.edu>
Cc: mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Adam Seering wrote:
>
> On Oct 17, 2006, at 12:04 PM, Alexander J Werbos wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Then why the UA? Judcomm would seem like the proper forum for judges, and
> things that require them.
Indeed. My thoughts over the course of the thread have drifted in that
direction. This should be arbitrated by the Judcomms.
>> 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.
>
> Your proposal didn't provide any provisions to help groups self-arbitrate,
> and it gave a whole lot of teeth to the UA. Why can't (1) there be some sort
> of framework to help groups self-arbitrate, and (2) there be a set of rules
> in place in the UA that allow the Judcomms to deal with arbitration, and/or a
> rule that gives the UA something substantially less than complete power
> (given internal consensus) to take anything from any student group? (is (2)
> and Judcomm a bad idea?; I'm not the most experienced in who actually does
> what, though this seems like a job for a judicial branch, not a legislative
> branch)
To meet the end of self-srbitration, I would propose the creation of a new
class of ASA allocation: communal property. Things that might come as a
package, like a physical space and all the equipment contained inside it.
That way, groups that owned such space privately could ask that it be made
communal as a result of informal negotiation.
The UA still has pretty much absolute power over the groups we control.
With the proper vote, we can do some pretty vicious things. The point here
is to create a formal, softer process, that involves ceding some of that
power for general cases.
And yes, you're right, this is something better reserved for the judicial
branch.
>> 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?
>
> I can't; I'm concerned that this could be a problem.
I don't think it will be. We sometimes must make appeals to the
rationality of society's judges. And, of course, through the system of
Checks and Balances, failures there can be remedied.
>>> "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.
>
> They should, of course, and probably would. But in politics, the line
> between absurdity and reason is not always the same as the line between fair
> and unfair; there's a really big and problematic grey area, and there's lots
> of room for people to bias their interpretations in the name of
> self-interest. I'm sure that the UA will generally act in the interest of
> student groups, but there are just plain a lot of ugly edge cases that seem
> to become possible with this type of rule. Do you see a way around that?
I must there cede some confidence to Judcomms, under the constitutional
oversight of the Senate.
-Alex
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
