[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: RFD: soc.religion.hindu-reorganization
In an eloquent manner, trivedi@weyl.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi)
elucidated:
>While I would be happy to see as much discussion about Hinduism
>as possible, in as many forums as possible---and I appreciate
>that the authors of this RFD are making a sincere effort in that
>direction---I also feel that the present s.r.h traffic does not
>demand a split.
However, I think it is wise in advance to set up an info newsgroup,
because any discussion topic of any size (and Hinduism covers roughly
one-fifth of mankind) eventually evolves into a group with a lot of
discussion where informative posts get lost - many newsgroups are now
setting up info sub-groups (even the Babylon-5 newsgroup devoted to
discussion of a very obscure TV program has created an info
sub-group).
>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 : if someone's post is accepted promptly, they
>don't even know you exist; if it is delayed or rejected, you
>become the lightning rod.
>
>I believe that it is not sufficient for fairness to be there,
>and I perceive it as being there, but that it should *obviously*
>and *manifestly* be there. 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 have to agree with the RFD that the delay of several days between
postings, tends to put a cold blanket on many discussions.
Having multiple moderators would help to avoid these delays.
And, I can't help but notice that since the RFD, these delays have
vanished!
>While I am in favor of considering improvements, I join Raj in
>calling upon *all* to keep out pettiness and childishness.
>
>I long for the day when it would make sense to have dozens of
>newsgroups dealing with different aspects of Hindu religion,
>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.
This is only someone's conjecture -- I have yet to see anyone post
anything stating they are unhappy specifically with our moderator, who
has done a fine job just getting everything this far.
Cheers,
Ken
kstuart@snowcrest.net
(if messages to me are retuned,
send the error messages/bounced messages to ken@macshasta.com)
References:
