[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: RFD: soc.religion.hindu-reorganization
In article <4b212j$7gl@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Anil Trivedi <trivedi@weyl.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>I am more sympathetic to the call for three or more moderators.
>Ajay Shah has done and is doing a great job, but it is by nature
>a thankless job
And for the record, Ajay was offered the opportunity to be a moderator
in the proposed reorg, but he declined. This was not, and is not, an
attempt to remove Ajay in any way.
>In that spirit, I think it would be a
>good idea (i) to have many moderators and, if practical, (ii) to
>always have a second moderator review a rejection. If having
>many moderators speeds up the posting process, that would be an
>added bonus.
I believe that what you have suggested is already covered by the
RFD. There is an "appeals" or "review" process for postings which are
rejected, and there are time limits on how often submissions must be
cleared.
>While I am in favor of considering improvements, I join Raj in
>calling upon *all* to keep out pettiness and childishness.
I join you in that call, and I think a good way to start would be to
focus discussion on the RFD, and not by pointing fingers and calling
peole childish, net-gods, etc.
>society, history, and civilization. However, such groups should
>be content-based; they should not be thrown around just because
>somebody is unhappy with one person.
Again, if this reorg were an attempt to unseat Ajay, why would we have
asked him to be a moderator of the new groups?
>Few readers of these words
>would need reminding just how much Hindu civilization has
>suffered from petty infighting.
This proposal is an improvement for the SRH* newsgroups, and given
that, I think that the most productive use of time would be to discuss
the proposal itself. All the questions about "political motivations",
etc., are just a waste of time, and given that they've already been
answered, I see no need to waste more time on them. I ask for future
participants on this thread to read the RFD and see if there's
anything in there which supports any of the claims of "politics",
etc. You will find that there is not.
-Vivek
(submitted around Mon Dec 18 11:12:04 CST 1995)
References:
