[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Where the SRH Reorg Discussion Isn't (was: Re: Administrivia: Where TheReorganization Discussion Should Be)

In the following note, which Ajay Shah posted to soc.religion.hindu
today, he seems to indicate that he is willing to allow the discussion
about the SRH reorganization proposal to take place on SRH. However,
Ajay has rejected 5 of my postings to SRH concerning the
reorganization, and he instead diverted them to news.groups, where
they were already posted by me.

I cannot assume that this act was a simple mistake, since other
postings made it to SRH. I am, however, willing to assume that this
was only a temporary lapse of judgement and if Ajay corrects his error
promptly, I will let the matter drop. The posts in question are being
attached to the end of this note, and a careful examination of the 5
posts will show that they are free from personal attacks. Therefore,
in the interests of fairness, I see no reason why they should not be
allowed on SRH. They obviously raise questions about some of the
accusations made against the proponents, and they are obviously in
favor of the reorganization, but if this discussion is to be fair,
then both sides should be given the opportunity to be represented on
SRH.

This is being posted to news.groups and
soc.culture.indian. Furthermore, it is being sent to
ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu, and is also being sent to
srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu. Return receipts are being kept, so evidence
of this letter exists.

-Vivek Pai


In article <4b5kna$9mc@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
srh <srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu> wrote:
>
>Saprem Namaskar,
>
>Based on my interpretation of messages from David Lawrence, the Moderators 
>Forum and the USENET adisor's forum, the discussion can take place anywhere,
>i.e., there is no restriction as such on where the discussion about
>the reorganization can take place.
>
>However, it is strongly recommended that to facilitate the tracking,
>and make it easier for the proponents of the newsgroup to answer 
>the issues raised, a cross post to news.groups should also be made.
>
>Please also note that the cross posting must be made by the poster, and I will
>not be making these cross posts.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Ajay Shah
>
>Moderator, Soc.Religion.Hindu

------------------------ 5 postings follow --------------


Article: 166992 of news.groups
Path: rice!news.sesqui.net!uuneo.neosoft.com!news.blkbox.COM!academ!insync!news.azstarnet.com!news.sprintlink.net!terra.net!news.bitstream.com!tristram.edc.org!news3.near.net!paperboy.wellfleet.com!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!news.ece.uc.edu!babbage.ece.uc.edu!srh
From: Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu>
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: SRH reorganization
Date: 19 Dec 1995 06:09:40 GMT
Organization: Rice University
Lines: 61
Approved: srh <srh@rbhatnagar>
Message-ID: <4b5kv4$9n2@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
References: <4b249r$8vu@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Originator: srh@rbhatnagar


In article <4b249r$8vu@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian  <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu (Ajay Shah) wrote
>Certainly, if Vaishnavism is some thing apart from Hinduism, why are these
>people interested in controlling the news-group? 

They are not. The proponents and the moderators are different people,
and the moderators are the ones who "control" the newsgroup. Ajay Shah
was asked to be a moderator in the reorg proposal, but he declined.
There's no attempt to somehow "control" the newsgroup - if that were
the case, why was Ajay asked to be a moderator?

For the record, 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>

And I don't remember any of these gentlemen being involved with the
SRV proposal.

>If these people start controlling the
>news-group, I strongly suspect that some of my posts accepted by the
>present moderator (Ajay Shah) wouldn't be accepted for the sole reason that I
>am against the interpretations of these folks. 

Once again, I would like to point out that Ajay Shah was asked to be
a moderator, so your suspicions are unfounded. 

>One begins to suspect that these
>people are trying to dismantle the news-group so that no opinions contrary to
>their own are heard on the net. Some people call this the Ostrich syndrome.

a) nobody is trying to dismantle the newsgroup - the reorg proposal
will create _more_ groups devoted to Hinduism, not less.

b) nobody is trying to control opinions - in fact, one of the
newsgroups will be _unmoderated_, so that if anyone feels the
moderator is trying to be biased, there's still a forum where that
person can be heard.

>Shri Bhatnagar had it 100.1% correct when he called this proposal childish
>behavior. 

Unfortunately, rather than discuss the proposal at length, most of his
posting consisted of personal attacks and inaccurate information.
After all, the fact that Ajay Shah was offered a moderator position in
the proposed reorg would show that there's no attempt to control the
newsgroups, but neither Ajay or Raj mentioned this. I would guess that
if they had mentioned it, it would be a lot harder to make some of the
accusations they did.

-Vivek
(submitted around Mon Dec 18 10:59:46 CST 1995)
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Ajay Shah Submissions: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Administrivia: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu 
Archives: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html


Article: 166993 of news.groups
Path: rice!news.sesqui.net!uuneo.neosoft.com!news.blkbox.COM!academ!insync!news.azstarnet.com!news.sprintlink.net!terra.net!news.bitstream.com!tristram.edc.org!news3.near.net!paperboy.wellfleet.com!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!news.ece.uc.edu!babbage.ece.uc.edu!srh
From: Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu>
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: SRH reorganization
Date: 19 Dec 1995 06:11:13 GMT
Organization: Rice University
Lines: 61
Approved: srh <srh@rbhatnagar>
Message-ID: <4b5l21$9rd@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
References: <4b249r$8vu@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Originator: srh@rbhatnagar


In article <4b249r$8vu@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian  <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu (Ajay Shah) wrote
>Certainly, if Vaishnavism is some thing apart from Hinduism, why are these
>people interested in controlling the news-group? 

They are not. The proponents and the moderators are different people,
and the moderators are the ones who "control" the newsgroup. Ajay Shah
was asked to be a moderator in the reorg proposal, but he declined.
There's no attempt to somehow "control" the newsgroup - if that were
the case, why was Ajay asked to be a moderator?

For the record, 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>

And I don't remember any of these gentlemen being involved with the
SRV proposal.

>If these people start controlling the
>news-group, I strongly suspect that some of my posts accepted by the
>present moderator (Ajay Shah) wouldn't be accepted for the sole reason that I
>am against the interpretations of these folks. 

Once again, I would like to point out that Ajay Shah was asked to be
a moderator, so your suspicions are unfounded. 

>One begins to suspect that these
>people are trying to dismantle the news-group so that no opinions contrary to
>their own are heard on the net. Some people call this the Ostrich syndrome.

a) nobody is trying to dismantle the newsgroup - the reorg proposal
will create _more_ groups devoted to Hinduism, not less.

b) nobody is trying to control opinions - in fact, one of the
newsgroups will be _unmoderated_, so that if anyone feels the
moderator is trying to be biased, there's still a forum where that
person can be heard.

>Shri Bhatnagar had it 100.1% correct when he called this proposal childish
>behavior. 

Unfortunately, rather than discuss the proposal at length, most of his
posting consisted of personal attacks and inaccurate information.
After all, the fact that Ajay Shah was offered a moderator position in
the proposed reorg would show that there's no attempt to control the
newsgroups, but neither Ajay or Raj mentioned this. I would guess that
if they had mentioned it, it would be a lot harder to make some of the
accusations they did.

-Vivek
(submitted around Mon Dec 18 10:59:46 CST 1995)
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Ajay Shah Submissions: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Administrivia: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu 
Archives: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html


Article: 166999 of news.groups
Path: rice!news.sesqui.net!uuneo.neosoft.com!news.blkbox.COM!academ!insync!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!news.ece.uc.edu!babbage.ece.uc.edu!srh
From: Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu>
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian
Subject: SRH-Reorg FAQ
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 19 Dec 1995 06:01:35 GMT
Organization: Rice University
Lines: 177
Approved: srh <srh@rbhatnagar>
Message-ID: <4b5kfv$9lj@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Summary: questions and answers about the SRH reorg
Originator: srh@rbhatnagar
Xref: rice news.groups:166999 soc.culture.indian:267624


The soc.religion.hindu-reorganization FAQ
-----------------------------------------

This document attempts to answer some commonly asked questions about
the soc.religion.hindu reorganization proposal, and it also attempts
to dispel a lot of the myths and fallacies about the proposal.

Modification History:
18 Dec 1995: FAQ Created

The latest version of this document can be found at
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-faq.html


0) Where can I find the RFD?

This is the most important question that can be asked, yet it seems
that much of the discussion which is taking place comes from people
who have not read the RFD. This is unfortunate, because the RFD clears
up a lot of the questions regarding the motivation of this RFD, and
the resulting scenario if this proposal passes.

The simplest place to find the RFD is on news.announce.newgroups, on
which articles generally don't disappear for a long time. It was also
cross-posted to a number of other groups, such as news.groups, such as
news.groups and soc.culture.indian. In addition, it was submitted to a
number of other moderated groups and mailing lists. All of this is
outlined in the RFD proposal.

Also, it can be found at
gopher://osiris.wu-wien.ac.at:7119/0news.announce.newgroups%3A7608

and also at
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh.html

1) What is the purpose of the proposal?

An excerpt from the Rationale section of the RFD:

" There exists at present a moderated newsgroup soc.religion.hindu,
  which unfortunately has several shortcomings in its existing
  setup. These have recently been apparent, and this proposal seeks to
  fill in a number of such oversights in SRH's construction, by making:

  i>   - provisions for multiple moderators to ensure quick response and
         fairness;
  ii>  - provisions for replacement of moderators;
  iii> - clear definitions of moderation guidelines;
  iv>  - provisions for handling disputes between an author and a
         moderator;
  v>   - clarifications regarding what constitutes unacceptable behavior
         by a moderator."

2) Will this destroy soc.religion.hindu?

In short, no. It will replace soc.religion.hindu with three groups:
unmoderated group talk.religion.hindu
moderated group soc.religion.hindu.moderated (renames soc.religion.hindu)
moderated group soc.religion.hindu.info

3) Why form new groups?

Each of the proposed groups serves a different purpose. The RFD has
sections giving the rationale for each of the groups, and a charter
for each group is provided. To summarize, soc.religion.hindu.moderated
will be where (moderated) discussion about Hinduism takes
place. Soc.religion.hindu.info will be where informational
announcement of interest to Hindus takes place, and
talk.religion.hindu will provide an unmoderated forum where other
Hinduism-discussions can take place.

4) What about the claim that this is politically motivated?

If this claim is examined, you will see that it has little support in
reality, and is more of a smokescreen than anything else. All of the
events surrounding this RFD were very public, and this RFD was not a
surprise. The pre-RFD stage, in which people were invited to
contribute to the RFD and share their comments, took place on
news.groups some time ago.

Once the RFD was drafted, a copy of it was sent to Ajay Shah well in
advance of it being posted to the newsgroups, and Ajay Shah, who is
currently the moderator of soc.religion.hindu, was asked to be one of
the moderators of the proposed newsgroups. So, it cannot be said that
the current moderator of SRH was somehow not aware of the proposal, or
that he was not asked to be involved.

In fact, Ajay Shah requested one of his friends in Houston, Vijay
Pallod, to get in touch with one of the proponents, Vivek Pai, and
discuss the RFD. All of this happened well in advance of the RFD being
posted, so it cannot be said that this RFD was a surprise. The
conversation between Vivek Pai and Vijay Pallod was lengthy and
cordial.

5) Where can I find the RFD, again?

Once again, check news.announce.newgroups or
gopher://osiris.wu-wien.ac.at:7119/0news.announce.newgroups%3A7608

6) Who are the proposed moderators?

>From the RFD:

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>

Note that the moderators represent diverse viewpoints, and this was
intentional. When a search for moderators was conducted, the goal was
to find honorable people who were familiar with Hinduism and who
cannot be said to be partial to any side.

7) What about the claim that this is an attempt to control the
   content of SRH?

This is totally without merit. Ajay Shah, the current moderator of
soc.religion.hindu, was contacted about being a moderator for the
proposed groups. He declined. Had this been an attempt to control SRH
in some manner, does it make sense that Ajay would have been asked to
be moderator? This offer was made through several channels, including
publicly on news.groups, directly to Ajay, and also indirectly through
Vijay Pallod. There was no attempt to oust Ajay.

8) Does this have any relation to soc.religion.vaishnava?

There is no direct link between this reorganization proposal and
soc.religion.vaishnava. There have been people claiming this is a
"revenge" move or "retaliation", but these claims don't hold up to
close examination. First of all, why would the proponents for this RFD
have contacted Ajay Shah if they wanted revenge against him? The
position of moderator is arguably the most important position in a
newsgroup, and were this some sort of vendetta, it doesn't make sense
that Ajay would have been asked to be moderator.

9) Who are the proponents, and what do they do?

As listed in the RFD, the proponents are:
            Mani Varadarajan <mani@srirangam.esd.sgi.com>
            Henry Groover <HGroover@Qualitas.com>
            Vijay Sadananda Pai <vijaypai@ece.rice.edu>
            Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu>
            Shrisha Rao <shrao@nyx.cs.du.edu>

The proponents are the ones responsible for the administrative details
concerning the RFD _only_. They are the ones responsible for writing
the RFD, contacting moderators, etc., but they will have no say in the
newsgroup once it is created. In some sense, the proponents are like
the "sponsors" of the RFD - they handle administrative issues _only_
regarding the RFD. Once the newsgroup is created, the role of the
proponents is over.

10) Where is discussion taking place?

This discussion is taking place on news.groups, where discussions of
this nature generally take place. Furthermore, some discussion is
taking place on soc.religion.hindu, but it should be cross-posted to
news.groups.

11) Did Ajay Shah know about this RFD?

As mentioned earlier, Ajay knew about the pre-RFD discussions on
news.groups, and he was given a copy of the RFD well before it was
posted to the newsgroups. He was also asked to be a moderator of the
newsgroups, so he was well aware of this RFD.

12) Was Ajay Shah involved with this RFD?

Ajay declined the offer to be a moderator for the newsgroups, but that
was his decision. He also had the opportunity to provide feedback
regarding the RFD before it was posted.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Ajay Shah Submissions: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Administrivia: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu 
Archives: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html


Article: 167002 of news.groups
Path: rice!news.sesqui.net!uuneo.neosoft.com!news.blkbox.COM!academ!insync!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!news.ece.uc.edu!babbage.ece.uc.edu!srh
From: Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu>
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.hindu-reorganization
Date: 19 Dec 1995 06:08:05 GMT
Organization: Rice University
Lines: 55
Approved: srh <srh@rbhatnagar>
Message-ID: <4b5ks5$9mu@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
References: <818964254.20578@uunet.uu.net> <4at19j$ei4@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4b212j$7gl@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Originator: srh@rbhatnagar
Xref: rice news.groups:167002 soc.culture.indian:267626

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)
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Ajay Shah Submissions: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Administrivia: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu 
Archives: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html


Article: 167003 of news.groups
Path: rice!news.sesqui.net!uuneo.neosoft.com!news.blkbox.COM!academ!insync!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!news.ece.uc.edu!babbage.ece.uc.edu!srh
From: Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu>
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.hindu-reorganization
Date: 19 Dec 1995 06:13:42 GMT
Organization: Rice University
Lines: 56
Approved: srh <srh@rbhatnagar>
Message-ID: <4b5l6m$9rg@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
References: <4at17n$ehv@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4b214b$7h8@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Originator: srh@rbhatnagar

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)
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Ajay Shah Submissions: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Administrivia: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu 
Archives: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
References:
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.