[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Why I support soc.religion.hindu: Reorganisation
In the excerpts from Raj Bhatnagar's article, he keeps insisting that
the somehow, the RFD is based on articles being rejected. He also
seems to imply that just by submitting more articles, the group will
change on its own, and that an RFD isn't needed. However, a quick
reading of the RFD would show that his claims aren't accurate.
>From the SRH Reorg FAQ: http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-faq.html
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;
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."
So, just by submitting more articles, we can see that all of the
things mentioned in the RFD will not get automatically handled. It
is, of course, not surprising that he tries to suggest that the
proponents have not spent enough time submitting articles - a quick
check of the alt.hindu and SRH archives will show that the proponents
have been fairly active in these groups - far more than Dr. Bhatnagar,
I believe.
To accuse someone of not spending enough time submitting articles
during this RFD is pointless - the RFD is obviously taking time,
especially with all of the conspiracy theories that Ajay and others
are coming up with. What's interesting is that the same charges are
leveled by the same people over and over, and that all explanations
seem to get ignored.
So, if you want to ask why there is so much time being wasted, there's
no need to point fingers at anyone else.
-Vivek
Wed Jan 17 11:51:37 CST 1996
In article <4df396$6j0@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Raj Bhatnagar <bhatnagr@ucunix.san.uc.edu> wrote:
[...]
>By all means; the proponents are requested to submit the type of articles
>that they want to see on s.r.h. If those articles are rejected only then
>they have a merit in their rfd. But that is not the case.
[...]
>One way to make the group more effective along the lines the proponents want
>is also to submit articles that they want to see on this newsgroup.
[...]
>increases. To insist so much on the change of moderotors and not spend
>the same time on submitting the desired type of articles is proof enough
>that the proponents are after the moderatorship and the effectiveness
>of group etc. is only of tangential concern to them, if at all.
