[2656] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Courtney Shiley)
Tue Oct 17 13:20:30 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:19:53 -0400
From: "Courtney Shiley" <cshiley@mit.edu>
To: "Alexander J Werbos" <awerbos@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610171218520.24754@dodecahedron.mit.edu>
Cc: Adam Seering <aseering@mit.edu>, mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
Ok, let me get this straight:
1. The logs built a recording studio, funded in part by a UA *loan*.
This loan is not in default or anything, so any claim the UA has on
the recording studio is based only on the logs being a student group.
2. The logs have made this studio available to other groups at a fee.
These groups have asked for the fee from finboard; the UA does not
want to pay the fee.
3. The UA wants to force the logs to let student groups use the studio for free.
4. Alex would prefer a guiding principle to cover this kind of thing
instead of deciding on an ad-hoc basis.
5. The current proposal is that under certain circumstances, the UA
will take a resource, or require free access to a resource, that a
student group owns.
This is terrible, for all of the reasons people have been bringing up
on this list. It doesn't solve the original problem in a fair way.
It's too big - any and all property is at risk. It is also too small -
you don't propose to change the entire theory of student group
property at MIT. I can suggest other cases where applying this
principle would generate absurd results, but that wuold make this a
very long email.
Instead, I suggest:
A. The UA should encourage groups to acquire spiffy toys like recording studios.
B. The UA should encourage groups to share their toys when it is
reasonably possible.
C. The UA should understand that sharing a spiffy toy entails a lot of
risk. It costs money to operate toys, and replace them as they wear
out or break. It costs time to train new users, or to provide
supervision as they play with the toy. This risk belongs to the owners
of the toy.
D. Generally speaking, people with toys deal with this risk by
charging other people to use their toys. This works pretty well.
E. Thus, the UA should ensure that groups with toys charge fair prices
for the use of their toys. The UA may pressure groups with toys to
share them, but it should not mandate it unless it is willing to pay
to absorb all of the risk.
This addresses your actual problem (the logs can charge reasonable
prices) while encouraging groups to go out and get expensive and
interesting equipment. Or at least not discouraging them.
-Courtney
On 10/17/06, Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu> wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
