[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: RFD: soc.religion.hindu-reorganization
[ This is a resubmission of an earlier posting. This posting
was sent to SRH, but got posted to news.groups instead. The
submission time mentioned at the bottom of the note was the
original submission time. The resubmission time is around
Tue Dec 19 13:54:18 CST 1995 ]
In article <4b214b$7h8@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
vivek Sagdeo <VSagdeo@gnn.com> wrote:
>This RFD is based on wrong assumptions.
The RFD phase is for discussion, and if someone has some points about
the RFD itself, please bring them up by all means.
>SRH is one of the best newsgroups that discusses Hinduism in its
>entirety.
And there's no reason why it cannot be improved - more moderators (and
in this case, the moderators come from diverse backgrounds) ensures
that more views go into decisions about the newsgroup, and the
response time for approvals, etc., should also drop with more people
"manning the helm".
>It was surprising to see this RFD come up and then
>seeing the explanations from Raj Bhatnagar and Ajay Shah shed
>some light into this matter.
Unfortunately, the "explanations" were largely inaccurate. The
proposed moderators were _not_ involved with the creation of
soc.religion.vaishnava, and the people who were involved with the
creation of soc.religion.vaishnava are _not_ trying to be moderators.
If you do not believe this, please check out the RFD yourself. You
will find that the proposed moderators are:
Moderator: Srinivas Kandala <srini@inrs-telecom.uquebec.ca>
Moderator: Anshuman Pandey <apandey@u.washington.edu>
Moderator: Srini Pichumani <srini@eecs.umich.edu>
Moderator: Raghu Seshadri <seshadri@cup.hp.com>
These people are the ones who will accept or reject postings, and the
postings by Ajay Shah and Raj Bhatnagar do not make this explicit.
The whole issue of "control" or "takeover" is also irrelevant, since
Ajay Shah WAS ASKED TO BE A MODERATOR, but he declined. This point was
also not made by Shah or Bhatnagar in their postings. I am sure that if
anyone is interested, the appropriate e-mail can be made available, with
Ajay's permission.
I urge everyone who's interested in this matter to read the RFD
themselves, rather than take the word of someone else regarding
what the RFD says. You'll find that the proposed groups will be
an improvement to SRH, and that there's no hostility involved from
the RFD proponents or moderators.
Thank you,
Vivek Pai
(submitted around Mon Dec 18 10:45:54 CST 1995)
References:
