[1259] in UA Senate
RESTRUCTURING
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Hawkins)
Wed Apr 13 13:57:10 2011
Reply-To: hwkns@MIT.EDU
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:57:06 -0400
From: Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@MIT.EDU>
To: UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>
--0016e6d7e8f3796bcc04a0d08957
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
As someone who has been around for a few years, it's my duty to hand out
unsolicited advice every once in a while. So here it is:
We need to approve the restructuring changes. Why? Because they will make
student government more efficient and effective. I'm going to enumerate
some of the objections I've heard and offer my response.
*1.* This was too fast - we should have set up a committee and given it the
whole semester (at minimum) to review our history, consider the merits of
our current structures, and decide how to make the UA into the best student
government possible.
*My response:* No. Besides the fact that the UA has *already been doing
that for the past decade*, the argument implies that the proposed changes
would preclude such lengthy and thoughtful evaluations from happening in the
future. The proposed overhaul was not introduced as the solution to all the
UA's problems, or as a student government we'll never have to modify again;
it's simply a better way of doing things than what we're doing right now.
*2.* Instead of risking everything with sweeping changes, we should consider
how we might improve our structure incrementally.
*My response:* Hill-climbing algorithms get stuck at local maxima -- there
are structures we cannot explore through incremental change, and some of
those may well be the most optimal structures.
*3.* One major goal of this restructuring is to improve our credibility with
administrators, yet no administrators were consulted while formulating the
proposal.
*My response:* While administrators may have the "best interest of
students" in mind, their concept of what qualifies as our best interest
sometimes differs from our own. Dining is one example of such a
misalignment. In light of this, it seems reasonable to start the process on
our own terms, and gather input from administrators later (which is exactly
what happened).
Furthermore, the push to restructure came from the UA Advisory Committee,
the members of which have far more experience in leading successful
organizations than MIT administrators.
*4.* The proposed structure doesn't include enough checks and balances.
*My response:* This is a very vague argument. If you have specific
examples, propose amendments. Don't use this as a reason to vote down the
entire proposal.
It is my opinion that any legitimate argument against the proposed changes
is a result of the following procedure:
- Critically evaluate the mission and purpose contained in your bylaws
and constitution.
- Decide which elements you believe are necessary, or should be performed
by a student government.
- Of those elements, identify one that could not be adequately carried
out under the proposed structure.
- Determine whether that element is being sufficiently performed under
the current structure.
- If so, you have an argument.
A good example is DormCon's funding mechanism; this was identified as
something that could not be adequately handled under the original proposal,
and that issue has now been resolved with the creation of the Dorm Funding
Committee.
I want this to be discussed as much as is needed, so I would encourage you
to reply-all and get a discussion going before the meeting tomorrow.
-hwkns
--0016e6d7e8f3796bcc04a0d08957
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As someone who has been around for a few years, it's my duty to hand ou=
t unsolicited advice every once in a while. =A0So here it is:<div><br></div=
><div>We need to approve the restructuring changes. =A0Why? =A0Because they=
will make student government more efficient and effective. =A0I'm goin=
g to enumerate some of the objections I've heard and offer my response.=
</div>
<div><br></div><div><b>1.</b> This was too fast - we should have set up a c=
ommittee and given it the whole semester (at minimum) to review our history=
, consider the merits of our current structures, and decide how to make the=
UA into the best student government possible.</div>
<div><br></div><div><b>My response:</b> =A0No. =A0Besides the fact that the=
UA has=A0<i>already been doing that for the past decade</i>, the argument =
implies that the proposed changes would preclude such lengthy and thoughtfu=
l evaluations from happening in the future. =A0The proposed overhaul was no=
t introduced as the solution to all the UA's problems, or as a student =
government we'll never have to modify again; it's simply a better w=
ay of doing things than what we're doing right now.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><b>2.</b> Instead of risking everything =
with sweeping changes, we should consider how we might improve our structur=
e incrementally.</div><div><br></div><div><b>My response:</b> =A0Hill-climb=
ing algorithms get stuck at local maxima -- there are structures we cannot =
explore through incremental change, and some of those may well be the most =
optimal structures.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><b>3.</b> One major goal of this restruc=
turing is to improve our credibility with administrators, yet no administra=
tors were consulted while formulating the proposal.</div><div><br></div>
<div><b>My response:</b> =A0While administrators may have the "best in=
terest of students" in mind, their concept of what qualifies as our be=
st interest sometimes differs from our own. =A0Dining is one example of suc=
h a misalignment. =A0In light of this, it seems reasonable to start the pro=
cess on our own terms, and gather input from administrators later (which is=
exactly what happened).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Furthermore, the push to restructure came from the UA A=
dvisory Committee, the members of which have far more experience in leading=
successful organizations than MIT administrators.</div><div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><b>4.</b> The proposed structure doesn't include enough checks and=
balances.</div><div><br></div><div><b>My response:</b> =A0This is a very v=
ague argument. =A0If you have specific examples, propose amendments. =A0Don=
't use this as a reason to vote down the entire proposal.</div>
<div><br></div><div>It is my opinion that any legitimate argument against t=
he proposed changes is a result of the following procedure:</div><div><ul><=
li>Critically evaluate the mission and purpose contained in your bylaws and=
constitution.</li>
<li>Decide which elements you believe are necessary, or should be performed=
by a student government.</li><li>Of those elements, identify one that coul=
d not be adequately carried out under the proposed structure.</li><li>Deter=
mine whether that element is being sufficiently performed under the current=
structure.</li>
<li>If so, you have an argument.</li></ul></div><div>A good example is Dorm=
Con's funding mechanism; this was identified as something that could no=
t be adequately handled under the original proposal, and that issue has now=
been resolved with the creation of the Dorm Funding Committee.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I want this to be discussed as much as i=
s needed, so I would encourage you to reply-all and get a discussion going =
before the meeting tomorrow.</div><div><br></div><div>-hwkns</div>
--0016e6d7e8f3796bcc04a0d08957--
