[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH reorganization
Namaskar,
On 11 Jan 1996, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:
> I am rather disappointed at the level of discourse that has taken place over
> the SRH reorganization proposal so far. Instead of focussing the merits or
So am I.
> otherwise of the reorganization proposal itself, all discussion has hitherto
> centered upon who the reorganization proponents are.
However, exploration of motives behind any proposal would be worth
discussing, wouldn't you think?
>
> 1. The present SRH reorganization proposal is not "revenge" for Ajay's position
> on SRV. Even though Ajay's own behavior during the SRV creation stage was
> less than acceptable. Firstly, Ajay did not say anything of consequence when
> the RFD for SRV was issued.
This is NOT true. Prior to RFD was posted, I communicated my opinion
to Shrisha Raoji. I also posted one message during RFD.
> He waited till the CFV came out, and people were
> already voting on SRV, with a proposal to change the name to SRHV. I have no
> idea what he thought he was accomplishing by that.
As I mentioned countless times before, I posted the message primarily in
response to my perception of the need of Hindu unity after the ISKCON
temple decision in UK
> The reasons for not
> including
> the word hindu in SRV had been discussed ad nauseum during the RFD stage
> itself,
> and nothing Ajay said or did later could have changed that. If Ajay felt
In fact, in my message, I clearly stated that it was a personal opinion,
and may not affect anything as far as the over all result was concerned.
> actions only lead me to suspect that all Ajay was interested then was in the
> defeat of SRV. Furthermore, Ajay did not dissociate himself from Jai Maharaj's
> postings of edited CFV's, which implied that Jai had Ajay's backing.
1. I had not such interest. I did not even post my message on SRH.
2. PLEASE, PLEASE stop claiming that I did not dissociate my self from
Jai Maharaj ji. The very day I was sent Jai Maharaj ji's note by Badrai
ji from Cornell, I sent him a note claiming that that I had nothing to do
with Jai Maharaj ji's message. I even posted a message to that effect
immediately on news.groups. In fact Jai ji himself posted such a note.
But since the proponents of SRV like yourself and other
supporters/proponents continue to propagate this untrue statement, I
must, sadly, doubt the intentions and honesty behind the entire re-org move.
> the outcome of the Usenet vote decide the issue. Ajay has not responded to
> this yet. The ball is in his court. It is clear that he does not want to
> return it.
I have already put forth a proposal for better presentation of Hindu
newsgroups on the net in a separate posting.
> 4. In my opinion, Ajay, as the moderator of the existing SRH, could have
> handled the whole reorganization issue better. The proponents of this reorganization
> have been fair enough in discussing it with him before posting the RFD. As
> such,
> he knew in advance that the proposal for reorganization was going to be
> discussed in public, and that his performance as a moderator would be
> evaluated.
SRH was merely 3 months into effect when the re-org proposal came out.
The pre-RFD was issued only 2 months after SRH was in effect. The
pre-RFD follwed immediately after I posted my view on word Hindu in
SRV. One of the proponents of SRV (and SRH re-org proponent) publicly
said that "I should be hit in my home turf" or something to that effect
for posting my personal opinion on inclusion of word Hindu in SRV.
Surely, those not associated with SRV creation as you were, will see the
direct connection. The evaluation of performance as a moderator etc. is
mostly based on skewed statistics any way.
> reorganized group, maybe Ajay was confident that the voting would turn out in
> favor of status quo. In other words, he was willing to risk the future of SRH
> to the outcome of a Usenet vote. His continued silence on the compromise
> proposal indicates that he is still willing to go ahead with it. He cannot find
> fault with the reorganization proponents later on, if the outcome of the vote
> turns out in favor of reorganization.
No. It would have meant that no one will stand up for the word Hindu in
the future because they will be afraid of consequences. As I mentioned
during the pre-RFD debate, I definitely do not mind losing moderatorship
of SRH, but I will stand up for the word Hindu and Hindu unity.
> 7. Finally, don't judge this issue by the names of the proponents. Sooner or
Why? Is it because you admit to them being too controversial? Or is it
because they indeed mooted the re-org as a personal vendetta and petty
political move?
> If Ajay responds to the compromise proposal and agrees to have more moderators,
> the voting may be unnecessary. SRH will be more dynamic and Ajay will have
> some assistance in his duties as moderator. I request him to take up the offer
> seriously and come to a compromise amicably, in the interests of unity.
If more Hindu newsgroups is indeed what is sought, if indeed more diverse
representation of Hindu discussion topics is sought, let us agree to the
proposal that I have made and create additional newsgroups along the
lines of SRV, and let us incorporate all the prominent contributors as
moderators and advisors to those newsgroups.
But imposing different set of rules on SRH and SRV moderation, posting
RFD to different set of newsgroups, allowing calls for action in one
newsgroup and not on the other, preventing posts that affect Hindu unity
and survival under the guise of politics etc. do not speak well for
re-org move.
If indeed there were *any* legitimate complaints, they could have been
brought forward. But readers of SRH had not seen any such complaints
before RFD.
> S. Vidyasankar
regards,
ajay shah
editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu
References:
