[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Towards a peaceful compromise
Brothers and sisters of the Dharma,
Let us all agree that we all sincerely seek what is best for the
Dharma. Let us leave behind us all that has been said that has caused
hurt, anger or otherwise assaulted the emotions. Let us start on a
clean slate.
The SRV issue should be considered closed. Any group of persons who
choose not to use the label 'Hindu' should be free to do so. Any
person who wishes to wear the label should be welcome to do so. The
Dharma is broad enough to embrace all with Love.
On the matter of SRH reorg, may I use the summary posted by Vivekji as
a reference point. Please don't take what I say as criticism of the
proposal. I simply wish to review the contents with you in the light
of all that has already been said.
Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>Section I: The proposed reorganization, and what it entails
>I.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;
Ajayji has, as been noted, improved his response time tremendously
since the RFD. He has promised to keep up the pace. Shall we not give
him a chance?
Shall we not work on the assumption that Ajayji will be fair and see
how that goes? This position can be reviewed at any time.
On the basis of the above, why don't we put the idea of multiple
moderators on hold for the time being?
> ii> - provisions for replacement of moderators;
Just as with the case of multiple moderators, why don't we put this
item on hold and monitor the need for it?
> iii> - clear definitions of moderation guidelines;
This is a good topic to discuss. If the question of moderator
replacement is put on hold, I am sure Ajayji will participate
sincerely in a discussion on moderation guidelines.
> iv> - provisions for handling disputes between an author and a
> moderator;
As at this time, I don't believe there have been any such disputes.
Would it not be good if all of us exercise restraint and avoid such
disputes? I worry about the possible negative effects of discussing
dispute management. Perhaps this item too can be put on hold until
found to be necessary. (This is a newsgroup of people interested in
spiritual and religious matters. We, more than anyone else, should
start from a standpoint of trust)
> v> - clarifications regarding what constitutes unacceptable behavior
> by a moderator."
Discussion of this item appears to stem from the assumption that a
moderator would act unethically. Shall we not assume that this is
unnecessary at this time and defer this item as well?
>I.2 Will this destroy soc.religion.hindu?
>In short, no. It will replace soc.religion.hindu with three groups:
>unmoderated group talk.religion.hindu
I have been in some unmoderated groups before and shudder at the
thought of such a group bearing the label 'Hindu'. Emotions run too
raw on the net. Shall we not leave unmoderated groups to non-Hindu
topics?
>moderated group soc.religion.hindu.moderated (renames soc.religion.hindu)
If the purpose be the same, why the need for a name change? If we can
agree to leave many of the issues related to moderation without
change, why don't we leave the name without change as well?
>moderated group soc.religion.hindu.info
There are those who have indicated that there is insufficient volume
to justify another group. I have not seen any statistics on this. If
enough people desire such a group, so be it! Otherwise let's leave it
alone as well.
>I.3 Why form new groups?
I have deleted Vivek' s explaination since all of you would have it
already. I don't believe I need to add to what I have already stated
above.
>I.4 Where is this discussion taking place?
This morning, I investigated and found that my news feed does not
accept posts from news.groups. I accessed the group through Netscape
via Vivekji's HTM but that requires online reading and will increase
my connectivity costs. Thus I will have to restrict myself to reading
whatever is cross-posted to SRH. I don't know how many others are in a
similar situation. Anyway this is only information for you and is not
relevant to the more important matters.
>I.5 Are more moderators really necessary and beneficial?
>More moderators will definitely help the group, since the workload of
>a single moderator will be less of an issue. More importantly, the
>hardware failure/unavailability of a single moderator's machine will
>not be a "catastrophic" issue, as it is now. Ajay himself has
>indicated (in article <4ba3ia$jao@babbage.ece.uc.edu>) that his server
>is sometimes unavailable, and this impacts the group negatively. For
>example, he mentions that it was down for 15 hours one day during the
>RFD period, and he mentions that postings could not be made once for a
>prolonged period because of a hardware upgrade.
As I pointed out earlier, Ajayji has promised to keep up his current
response time. Why don't we give him a chance? There is nothing to
lose.
As for hardware failure, Ajay has said that he is looking into this.
Again, why don't we give him a chance? If any have practical
suggestions, I think Ajay should now be in a frame of mind to welcome
them (unless he already has his solution).
>Having multiple moderators would definitely help in this respect,
>since there would not be a single location where a failure would
>cause the newsgroup to effectively shut down.
>I.6 How could more moderators handle the workload problem?
>Ajay claims that he approves articles 4-6 times per week, but while
>that may be the case since he received the RFD, it was most certainly
>not correct for several months before the RFD. This is not an attempt
>to find fault with Ajay, since surely his job and his family
>responsibilities take up time, and nobody wants (or expects) him to
>neglect those for SRH. However, it does make sense, then, to have
>multiple moderators, to make the workload easier on each.
I'm sure I do not have to repeat what I said earlier.
>One of the proponents gathered data from the SRH archive concerning
>the number of posts approved to SRH and the dates and times they were
>approved. This information has been compiled, and can be found at
>http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-stats.html
I have looked at these graphs. Unless Ajay or anyone else is able to
show otherwise, I accept their validity. Let us drop all talk about
skewed statistics.
The graphs indicate that Ajay has shown improvement. Why not give him
a chance to continue?
>Be aware that this page has a number of graphs, so a graphical browser
>is essential to see the full data.
>Even Raj Bhatnagar seems to agree that the idea of having multiple
>moderators has merit, and he has suggested ideas for how to select
>more moderators. Most people who have spoken about this issue seem to
>agree that multiple moderators is a good thing. While Ajay has spent a
>great deal of time on moderating SRH, it does not make sense to force
>any moderator to work alone on a newsgroup that large.
If, after all his assurances, Ajayji is still unable to maintain his
improved response time, I too will agree to the idea of having
multiple moderators. I trust that if Ajay finds himself hard pressed
to keep up the pace, he will be sensible enough to ask for help. Until
then, let us not thrust help upon him.
>Section II: The moderators and the proponents
I have deleted this portion as I think it is not relevant at this
time. If, at a later time, additional moderators are deemed necessary,
this same group may still be the most likely candidates. I sincerely
hope they have no objection to being put on hold this way. It is,
after all, in the interest of the Dharma.
>II.4 What does the GHEN (Global Hindu Electronic Network) and the
> Hindu Universe have to say about the work of the proponents and
> the moderators?
>The GHEN and Hindu Universe are run from Raj Bhatnagar's machine,
>where groups like soc.religion.hindu and alt.hindu are also archived.
>These sites are probably the largest Hindu sites, and they are
>maintained by Ajay Shah as well as other people. It is interesting to
>note that these sites not only contain several Hinduism-related posts
>by the proponents and moderators in the archives for alt.hindu and
>SRH, but this site also explicitly links to sites created by some of
>the proponents. For example, the pages located at ...
I have no doubt that the persons selected are eminently suitable for
the role of moderation. Let us remember that they have volunteered
their services if a time comes when other moderators are needed.
>Section III: People involved in the RFD
>III.1 Did Ajay Shah know about this RFD?
>III.2 Was Ajay Shah involved with this RFD?
>III.3 Did Raj Bhatnagar know about this RFD?
I'm sure most of you will agree with me that, in view of wanting to
reach a peaceful compromise, further discussion of the above topics
will not add value. Let us drop those topics.
>III.4 Where can I find the RFD, again?
It may be a good idea at this time to remove the RFD while we are
trying to discuss a peaceful compromise. Many who do not subscribe to
SRH may be unaware of this compromise proposal. BTW, please feel free
to post this article to any relevant newsgroup.
>Section IV: Rumors and innuendos
This is one area where much damage was done. Apologies are in order.
But if apologies are demanded at this stage of the discussion,
progress may be hindered.
Perhaps, at this stage, we should compete to see who can be the most
magnanimous and is able to show that he believes in the Dharma of
forgiveness.
Sanathana Dharma is the path of Love and Understanding. I seek to walk
that path. I know that many of you too will chose that path. Shall we
not set aside personal desires, humble our egos and seek
reconciliation and compromise. This way there will be no losers. And
the Dharma will be the winner.
Peace and blessings.
SV Singam
Minden, Penang
