Considering the amount of feedback given during last meeting's communication regarding the UA's decision to table Jay's Calendar Proposal, I thought that our blog would be a great place to continue our discussion and offer our personal insight and feedback.
Sunday night I voted to table the proposal. In retrospect I think that this vote may have been a bit premature, however, I still believe that there were enough main issues mentioned in the discussion and pro/con that could be improved on for the future proposal.
Personally, I really appreciate and agree with the spirit of Jay's proposal. I think that having a consolidated calendar system would do wonders for students. I'm looking forward to the progress that Jay makes on this proposal. That being said, I still have some reservations regarding the lack of screening and moderating associated with the calendar. It seemed like there would be no moderator and that this idea hadn't been thoroughly considered. The reason I feel this is really important is because the only thing worse than having no calendar is putting a lot of work and effort into a calendar that is inundated with frivolous and ridiculous events (think Facebook invites). Also having a poorly run temporary calendar would hurt the credibility and success of the permanent calendar to come. I think this is something that should be looked into and discussed before bringing the proposal back to the table.
Again I really enjoyed Jay's proposal and I'm looking forward to seeing it come back to the body again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I'm still new to everything, but here are my impressions. Please correct me if I'm wrong!
There seems to be a TON of calendar's going around (the almanac, penn portal, DP, and the other newsletters and whatnot), and I fear that this will just turn into "yet-another-calendar." It seems to me as if the best option would be to spend all the time and resources to work with ISC (I believe that's the one on penn portal) and improve that, instead of making a whole new one. Part of the skepticism comes from Google being an outside source, and I don't know too many freshmen who use Google Calendar, whereas I do know many who already use penn portal as their homepage. Also the ease of uploading dates/events without a moderator worries me in that it might have too much useless information, and while people can choose which events to subscribe to, I think if someone wants to subscribe to something they will usually receive the newsletter from that group. Without a moderator it may become too cluttered, deterring people from using this calendar as well. Also, I don't envision the majority of the leaders on campus to upload all of their dates unless there's massive amounts of coverage, and from the impression I got, this calendar wouldn't be lauded tremendously because of all the already-existing calendars floating around.
I do applaud the effort and I think it's awesome that people working to improve this, since our calendar system truly sucks. I just think that working with ISC and Penn would be a better alternative. Again, please excuse my lack of inexperience--these are just my impressions and I'm sure I could be wrong on a lot of these points.
-Mark Pan
Great comments so far. I think everyone understands this already, but please remember that if you do not agree with something that is in a proposal, it does not mean that it should be tabled or not brought to the body. Instead, it is a situation for you to vote something down. You can also motion to vote on separate clauses of each proposal separately, so that something about how the system is run (GCal v. Penn Portal) could be changed while passing the rest of the document.
That being said, I have a few responses to what's been posted already:
- I'm still not really sure what everyone's concern about screening is. I'm assuming that the way that this system would work is to give access to a single person from each participating group, such as the secretary. All groups have access to their own listserves anyway, and emails sent out are not monitored in any special way. So, how is this different? I envision the calendar as being a listserve that you can look at when you actually have time to participate in something, instead of getting all of those emails when you don't want them. I feel like this system would therefore make it easier on students-- maybe you could subscribe to a calendar instead of a listserve, so that you can view all of your event options at once.
- I think it's interesting to have a freshman perspective on how many resources are currently available, because I think that it a different outlook for upperclassmen. Nobody really uses Penn Portal or Almanac because they are not devoted to UNDERGRAD events and resources. Those are university wide and by having our own calendar, we make it more applicable to our substituents. This also applies to the reason for having the Undergraduate Tab on Penn Portal, which minimizes the items so that undergrads can focus on what is important to them. So, I feel like this system is definitely necessary and unique from what is currently available.
- I think that leaders of various groups really do want this sort of system to be implemented, as I think that we've discussed it on UA Steering before. Jay, perhaps you have a better background with this. But also remember that we're talking about academic events, which departments really do try to advertise.
- As far as advertisement, I agree with you Mark that it will be difficult to advertise the system and get students to use it. But, that's our job and we can do it if we really support the initiative. Every project is difficult to get students into, but it's important that we stick by what we believe should be available to everyone.
That's it for now.
-Dipal
The first thing that comes to mind concerning any problems with the calendar proposal is that of outsourcing something that to me, seems like it belongs to the university. What concerns me is that Google Calendars is only in the beta stage and thus, is fairly unpredictable in its reliability. It would be a shame, in my opinion, for departments and clubs across campus to rely on a system that could, at any time fail. I honestly see no reason, and maybe you can enlighten me as you have obviously be working on this for longer than I have even been on the UA, as to why we do not simply try to work to improve the Penn Portal calendar system. Doing this, would allow the university to maintain some semblance of control over the technology. I do understand the problem with the Penn Portal system, namely that there is just too much information, but I don’t understand why we could not just try to make that a subscription based calendar system. These are the ideas I have about the issue, but those said, I still think a school-wide calendar system is a great idea, and I commend you on your work so far. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you with the project!
Speaking from the point of view of someone who is fairly new to this school, I suppose my main concern about the calendar was the fact that there are already so many different applications available to Penn students. I am already confused about the million different Penn web applications and I thought that perhaps adding another one would just add more clutter. Instead of adding more apps I thought that we should improve and organize our current systems.
However, concerning the tabling, in retrospect I now see that it was very premature. I now know that tabling is a big deal, especially given the time and dedication that was devoted to the project. We have 33 very bright minds that all want to help our school. Even if one person may think that the idea is not plausible at any point, that doesn't mean that there isn't anything worthwhile in it to discuss and analyze. So, I want to extend my apologies to Jay for being so rash in my decision to table.
In any case, I'm looking forward to the Academic Affairs meeting tomorrow so we can talk about this more.
_Albert
I encourage everyone to check out SLICE, UNC Chapel Hill's student event calendar. It is located at http://slice.unc.edu/
While the interface is easy for any non-computer savvy student (such as myself), the site lacks links to specific student groups on campus. Rather, it accumulates activites in sections, such as "Greek Life" and "Athletics."
The point I am trying to reach is that any commerical calendar interface is going to have its advantages and disadvantages... but leaves us without the ability to customize the interface. This leaves us with three options: develop a system through ISC that resembles SLICE (Mark's suggestion), work on existing systems like Penn Portal (Adam's suggestion), or utilize a global, freesharing system like Google (Jay's proposal, Dipal).
I certainly hope that in the future, whether near or far, ISC develops a calendar system. A fully-functioning, malleable calendar that the UA and ISC could tinker with is ideal. However, Jay has been putting pressure on ISC for over a year to push this initiative. A combination of the Penn Alert Notification System's priority, as well as a slight apathy on the ISC's part have rendered this project obsolete for the near future.
This leaves us with fixing the existing Penn Portal. It is indeed a strong suggestion that involves repairing a service that is seen daily by many undergraduates. However, the process of repairing the Penn Portal calendar involves loads of red tape and beaurocracy, similiar to the ISC project. The university launched the program with the same thoughts in mind that we have now in building our calendar. However, the stop time between posts and administrative breakdown caused the Penn Portal calendar to never gain the popularity it could have had.
Which leads us to our Google Calendar proposal. While Google does not seem like a permanent solution, it is a stepping stone to something more practical. It is well known and omnipresent. For the non-Google-using Penn Undergrad, Google is easy and efficient to set up an account, especially with Jay's tutorial in his proposal. We are truly dealing with a consumer-driven project-- if students sign up, then groups must surely follow their lead and advertise their events. While the inertia might be strong, since when has that ever stopped us? As Dipal pointed out, it should be our duty as UA members, and furthermore leaders of the school, to promote a project that we vote for. Our name alone can push a project over the hump to success.
With a successful year of Google Calendar organizing our University's daily activities, pressure will be put on ISC to develop a more permanent solution. But until then, I can't help but see the upside of a project like this. Yes, the threat of having a project fizzle is scary, but this goes hand in hand with any more-revolutionary project that student government churns out. If we provide push and keep open minds, we can see Google calendar flourish to better the future of our university calendar.
I really appreciate the comments that Mark, Dipal, Adam, and Albert all left. This type of open forum is key to creating the best policy. I can't wait to see all of you guys on Sunday.
Okay first of all, I have no idea how I have a blogspot.com account even if it's synched with my Google account.
In any case, I digress.
I'll just list my concerns so that we don't get caught up in waxing eloquence:
1. Screening: My extreme example used during the meeting was intended to convey the possibilities of false information - not necessarily party/social information - from being posted. I understand that student groups would have one representative post, but I still think there should be some monitoring system to verify the 1. credentials and 2. viability of the post. Additionally, how will we ensure that one group is not dominating the entire system over, say, a smaller group? How can we ensure that there is parity in frequency of group events? Will it be randomized (this does not include the specific sections – e.g. sports, arts, etc.)?
2. Streamlining: This was, in my eyes, the most significant problem. It makes little logical sense to me for two separate systems to be developed from the perspective of student groups. It was said that student groups would be taught how to utilize the calendar system, then retrained to comply to the new, ISC-created system. Although I believe that such instruction would not be too time-consuming, I do believe that it would be an added chore to student groups’ already long aggregated list. Why not simply streamline the entire process by creating one system with ISC? I understand that ISC has been relatively stagnant thus far (or at least, that’s what was conveyed), however there were specific citations in the proposal that stated ISC’s willingness to comply with the UA and Jay’s initiative now. In short, why re-invent the wheel twice with two separate groups? Why not consolidate it into one?
3. Tabling: In terms of the “prematurity” of tabling, I have to disagree. I, for one, was quite convinced that there were specific, outstanding holes in the proposal that were simply not researched. Multiple times, the answers to questions were “I don’t know.” As an elected undergraduate representative of the University of Pennsylvania, I feel very uncomfortable voting whole-heartedly for something that I feel lacks sufficient research on key issues (described above and elsewhere). We are charged with making informed decisions – not assumptions. During another conversation, it was said that the proposal was merely seeking feedback; in my three years on the body, that is not what a proposal is – that’s a policy update/plan of action. A proposal should be something sufficiently researched for its purpose (and I recognize that this was well-researched, however I do not believe that there was enough substantive material to supplant the proposal) that, because it has all the cards on the table, is then debated. Moreover, I was irked by comments that stated “we need more debate.” Although I believe that perhaps one more round of debate would have been beneficial to the spirit of discussion and perhaps opening up new considerations, I do not believe that it would have elucidated any prior ambiguities that we, as a body, had. The point of debate is not to hear ourselves speak, nor is it to be had for the sake of having it. If we are approaching extensions of time for the latter reason (which was definitely the impression I got during communications), then we’re extending discussion on very superficial grounds. Quite often we end up repeating ourselves on the body – at some point, we must ask ourselves “why?” As a last note, I would like to encourage those who voted in favor of tabling the proposal to not feel compelled to renege on their votes unless they truly believe that they made a mistake.
I know this sounds firm, but I do not want it to seem harsh. I applaud Jay heavily for taking on such an ambitious and, in my opinion, absolutely necessary project. I know he’s worked very hard on this for the past year, and sympathize with his difficulties in conjuring tangible administrative receptivity. Additionally, I appreciate the respect in this blog forum (that I think was – for the most part – apparent at the meeting) from my fellow members. Hopefully we can give Jay enough feedback to ensure that this proposal is rock solid to withstand administrative and student group pressure. I simply want to make sure that this is done properly and well; after all, we are the Undergraduate Assembly.
Post a Comment