[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH reorganization AND the right way to highlight a problem
In article <4cvius$3c@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
V.S. Nair <cheaw260@emory.edu> wrote:
[...]
>Shri. Vivek Sadanand Pai has tried to provide a number of reasons why
>more than one moderator is needed. He has also shown statistics to show
>that there used to be a clearance delay of several days for posts to
>appear on SRH.
>He now says that presently posts only have a 2-day clearance delay . If
>only Vivek had gently pointed out this problem to the moderator instead
>of proposing a RFD we would all be spending our time discussing more
>pertinent issues.
Thank you, Nairji, but one thing you forgot to mention here is that
Ajay refuses to believe those statistics at all, and calls them
"skewed". I am very happy that the turnaround time has improved
dramatically since the RFD was sent to Ajay, but I want to make sure
that the improvement is permanent, not just temporary, and multiple
moderators is one way to make sure that a single moderator's schedule
or hardware problems don't cause long delays in the appearance of
articles.
>We should have a more amicable way of resolving disputes.
I agree entirely, and that's why Ajay was asked to be a moderator in
the RFD, and that's why the pre-RFD discussions took place very
publically on news.groups. The RFD shouldn't have been a surprise to
anyone at all, since I believe the pre-RFD discussions started at
least a month before the RFD was sent.
Even now, the proponents are trying to reach a compromise solution,
and we're very much open to compromise.
>It is obvious that the moderator is sensitive and able to address the
>issues of importance to SRH readers. Rather than making
>accussations,
I agree entirely - the accusations of "destroying the Hindu
newsgroup", "srv vs srh", "personal vendettas", "petty politics",
etc. are all counter-productive.
>causing disruptions and injuring each other's feelings
Yes, for example, when Nagaraj Patil stated "Some times I feel that
there is no difference between muslims and SRVs. They want to build
their babri masjid on SRH janmabhoomi," I had to wonder what all of
that was about. After all, it seems very much designed to try to paint
the "SRVs" as enemies of Hinduism, or something to that effect. I
believe that most sites probably still carry his post, and if you want
to make it clear that you don't support that sort of attempt at
name-calling, you might want to follow up to it. If not, I can send
you a copy of his post so you can see for yourself what he said.
>it would be healthier if the individuals having problems with the moderator
>could personally resolve it with Ajay Shah under the existing framework of
>SRH.
Actually, I don't know who that statement applies to - after all, Ajay
has been offered a spot as a moderator in the reorg proposal, and the
offer still stands, and I don't think that anyone involved with the reorg
has said that he has a "problem" with the current moderator.
>It enable the rest of us to discuss issues of much greater importance in a
>cordial atmosphere!!
Actually, I had wanted this entire discussion to take place in
news.groups so that soc.religion.hindu would be spared its predictably
high traffic. The decision to allow this discussion on SRH was Ajay's,
and I've just followed his lead. As others have pointed out, this
discussion has taken up a lot of SRH's bandwidth, and for that I am
sorry, but if at any time all parties involved wish to move the
discussion to news.groups, I will wholeheartedly agree.
-Vivek
(submitted around Wed Jan 10 15:17:25 CST 1996)
