[2661] 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 14:14:20 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:13:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>
To: Courtney Shiley <cshiley@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <6cfe8a400610171019i3b268ee8v96aa92723d6958d9@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Adam Seering <aseering@mit.edu>, mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Courtney Shiley wrote:
> Ok, let me get this straight:
> ...
Your assessment of the facts is solid.
> 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.
I simply mean to make the theory that already exists clear.
And yes, you can of course generate any number of absurd results, assuming
idiotic, corrupt, or massively selfish groups of people. But that's how it
goes. No system can overcome bad people. We can only hope that people stay
relatively good. And, in that case, I think my proposed system works
rather well.
> Instead, I suggest:
>
> A. The UA should encourage groups to acquire spiffy toys like recording
> studios.
Absolutely. The new Finboard Startup Capital Fund will make this even more
common.
> B. The UA should encourage groups to share their toys when it is
> reasonably possible.
Yes.
> 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.
Yes, it does entail risk. As soon as some resource becomes communal,
operation becomes communal. If it requires money to keep a facility
running, that money will be paid by all that use it.
Here, I think that the owners of any such "toy" purchased with Finboard
money are the undergraduates at large.
> D. Generally speaking, people with toys deal with this risk by
> charging other people to use their toys. This works pretty well.
Ummm... sometimes. Sharecropping isn't so good. I think that MIT stuff
should be owned by MIT students at large. I'm not talking about the
abdication of financial responsibility, just broader, and equal, sharing.
> 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.
And here I disagree completely. Student groups should only be charging
others on a rare basis. Yes, if my group needs to contract another group's
equipment for a one time use, it's only fair to pay for whatever
consumables are used, in addition to any required supervisory time. But no
student group should be regularly paying rent to another.
> 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.
Yes, in the same way that people are encouraged to gather vassals.
The point isn't to encourage people to acquire stuff. Rather to allow them
to get what they want to do, done. Sometimes this means acquiring things,
and sometimes this means sharing them.
-Alex
> 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
