[2660] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Seering)
Tue Oct 17 14:01:20 2006
In-Reply-To: <6cfe8a400610171019i3b268ee8v96aa92723d6958d9@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Seering <aseering@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:00:26 -0400
To: "Courtney Shiley" <cshiley@mit.edu>
Cc: Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>, mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
This is how I currently understand the situation, and I'd take your
suggestions as more concise and effective than what I've come up with
so far. Thanks!,
Adam
On Oct 17, 2006, at 1:19 PM, Courtney Shiley wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
