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

Re: RFD: soc.religion.hindu-reorganization

In article <4b23ai$j4o@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,
N. Tiwari <ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu> wrote:
>Shrisha Rao (Shrisha.Rao@launchpad.unc.edu) wrote:

>Leave 'political aspects' of a.i.p aside. However a cursory glance at a.i.p
>will show, that the no. of people associated with a.i.p is very low. And
>further, if you read a.i.p carefully enough (and also read s.c.i) you will
>realize that most of the people who read a.i.p also read s.c.i. So, the 
>target audience, which is exclusively a.i.p-ite is very low.

It may be that all of the above is true. However, we did not know it
at the time. In any event, if the AIP crowd is mostly, if not wholly,
part of SCI's readership, then it serves no political purpose, either,
to post there, and such was the insinuation.

In addition, I quote Michael Handler (who was, incidentally, the
votetaker for the soc.religion.hindu proposal, as you know) -- in a
different but related case where it is alleged that a proponent did
not post to relevant groups that might not have helped his proposal
(which is not true here, anyway):

"No, the RFD was _restricted_ to groups where people would be
interested in discussing the topic from the viewpoint as presented in
the RFD. How hard is this to understand?

"The RFD should not be posted to groups who might "object" to it. We
don't care if people might "object" to it. If they "object" to the
group, they can exercise their right not to read the group. Got it?"

>Now do a similar analysis for s.c.i with s.c.i.marathi? And you will 
>find that the target audience which is exclusivley s.c.i.m-ite is easily
>larger than the former. So, going by your own logic, scim, or scit etc.
>should also have been involved in the discussion.  

I'm sure they can be; pointers have been posted there.

>Further, the 200 char limit is not a very good reason atleast IMO. Afterall
>how much time does it take to post the article, on other groups too, once
>you have the article ready.

Recall that the posting is _not_ done by the proponent(s); it is done
by David Lawrence, moderator of news.announce.newgroups. If he
enforces the rule that only 200 characters are allowed in the
Newsgroups header, then that's it. Although I do not know the exact
rule for/against reposting RFDs, it seems to be the case that
proponents themselves may only post pointers to the RFD/CFV on other
newsgroups. They are not supposed ot post these documents
themselves. Actually, I suppose it would be ok for a proponent to go
ahead and post the RFD after it has been posted to
news.announce.newgroups -- the CFV is another issue. However, posting
an RFD to a group where Tale did not send it, would perhaps give rise
to the false expectation that the CFV will appear there as well. If a
reader of such a newsgroup comes across the CFV later on another
group, he might well vote against it simply because he feels slighted
at not having seen it on his group.

>: None of that rules out posting an RFD, does it? If an interested community
>: exists, why not post.
>
>Perhaps it might be not that simple. Many of the people may actually be
>unaware of the political games involved in the re-hash of the entire setup.
>And, since the mail list is essentially interested in India, they may
>actually endorse the idea, in presence of insufficient information, and
>awareness of the politcs of these newsgroups. 

Why don't you leave the "political aspects" aside, as you yourself
suggested in another place? Also, as Mr. Handler clearly states, it is
completely up to the proponents to reach such audiences as might be
supportive of their proposal, regardless of whether others who might
object are also reached.

>: >Given the concern with ability to remove moderators, why is the proposal
>: >making the moderator group a closed group? Why not allow a mechanism
>: >for voting by the >readers< to remove a moderator?
>
>: Very simple. Because such a mechanism is virtually unheard of. Who would
>: gather votes to remove the moderator? Not moderators or readers, because
>: their neutrality cannot be proved. Not the UVV, who seem to be the only
>: neutral party that are (at least widely) accepted as fair votetakers,
>: because they're too busy with votes on new proposals, and can't be
>: bothered with such added burdens. Thus, a _provably_ fair procedure for
>: such vote-taking is not possible, as we decided after some discussion.
>
>Well, since a mechanism DOES NOT exist, does not imply that it cannot be 
>created. As for the choice of vote-takers, UVV might do just fine. They
>might be very well interested in it. Further, even if they are not interested,
>the interested parties can actually mail there respones on the net, (under
>some thread) and these responses can be verified, and then counted. 

I'd think it is a safe bet the UVV will want nothing to do with
this. If you can get from the UVV Coordinator a commitment that the
UVV will be responsible for such votes, or even a commitment from a
specific votetaker, then you have a point; otherwise, it is not enough
that we proceed on the probably-false belief that the UVV "might very
well be interested in it."

Posting to threads is not enough, since trolls, crossposts, etc.,
cannot be discounted, and no vote of any seriousness is held by
counting postings.

>: >These concerns, along with the fact that the RFD period coincides with
>: >Xmas break makes me suspicious of the proponents. What would have been
>: >lost by delaying the RFD posting till Jan 15?
>
>: Over a month of time.
>
>And so!!

Perhaps you have been given a boon by Brahma that you will have a
lifetime lasting a million years, but some of us lesser mortals are
unwilling to wait for a month for anything that might be done sooner,
unless there are compelling reasons for it.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

>Nachiketa Tiwari
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.