[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH: Towards a peaceful compromise
I wish to address the issue of a compromise on SRH. It has been
brought up here, by Singam, and Dhruba has also spoke of it on
the thread "SRH improvement". Rather than quote the entire thread
and respond in that manner, let me reorganize the discussion into
some broad topics.
The topcis are:
- The path to a compromise/improvement
- How is the RFD viewed
- Response time and statistics
- Improving SRH
The path to a compromise/improvement
------------------------------------
It has been suggested that rather than go to a full vote, we should
seek out some compromise. The proponents support this idea, and I
personally have had quite a bit of discussion in order to attempt
this. Likewise, Mani even proposed a simplified compromise plan.
However, the path to a compromise requires one essential element which
has been missing so far: Ajay. So far, I have discussed finding some
middle ground with Raj Bhatnagar, and some people have commented on
Mani's proposal, but Ajay has not commented at all on the compromise
plans.
Raj Bhatnagar even mentioned the possibility of Ajay naming some extra
moderators, but when I asked him to have Ajay do that, there was no
response from Ajay.
I posted earlier an article where I describe a "back room" meeting
with Vijay Pallod, a friend of Ajay's, to discuss the RFD. Mr. Pallod
and Ajay have been in contact several times, according to Mr. Pallod,
and I have repeatedly asked Mr. Pallod to convince Ajay to try to
reach a compromise. However, the proponents have not heard from Ajay
in this matter.
I am glad that Dhruba and Singam wish to discuss some sort of
compromise agreement, but I'm afraid that one component is lacking,
and without Ajay's involvement, it seems that this too is destined for
failure. My discussions with Raj Bhatnagar seem to have amounted to
nothing, and as a result, unless Ajay specifically appoints someone to
talk on his behalf, or if he speaks out himself, it seems that any
talk of a compromise is just that - talk only.
I believe that I speak for all the proponents when I say that we are
ready to discuss alternative agreements, rather than going for a CFV.
However, unless _both_ parties talk about a compromise, such
discussion is futile.
How is the RFD viewed
---------------------
Ajay has made statements putting the RFD and RFD-related discussion in
a negative light. For example, statements like "...re-org RFD related
discussion occupying most of my spare time which would have been
utilized for constructive endevours like this..." imply that the
RFD is not constructive or productive.
This may help to explain why a compromise seems hard to reach - Ajay
does not view the RFD as having any merit, or if he does, he has not
shown it. I have thrice asked a set of specific questions to Ajay, and
they were to determine what his views were about the RFD.
So far, others have answered the questions, but Ajay has been silent.
These questions were posted repeatedly, and other people also
suggested that they were reasonable questions, and it was only fair to
ask that Ajay provide answers, but to this day, Ajay has not.
I believe that the RFD is quite fair, and contains a number of good
points. You are welcome to look at the RFD yourself, and it can be
found at http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh.html
However, as long as the RFD and the RFD-related discussions are viewed
as not "constructive", I'm afraid that there's little hope of seeing
any movement from Ajay towards a compromise. The one time Ajay did
seem to indicate he was willing to expand SRH, he was quick to point
out that he did not want an info group or an unmoderated TRH.
Oddly, Ajay hasn't said much about the RFD itself, but has made many
allegations about the proponents and their motives. This is the
discussion that has been very unproductive, and this is the discussion
that has caused so much traffic. Indeed, if Ajay wanted to spend his
time doing constructive things, then it seems that stopping the
ridiculous accusations and talking to the proponents, rather than
accusing them of all sorts of things, would be a good start.
Response time and statistics
----------------------------
I believe the statistics page, others believe the statistics page, and
I've gone to a fair bit of trouble to even demonstrate how one can
independently verify the data on that page. For those not familiar
with the statistics page, please look at
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-stats.html
The statistics showed how multiple moderators would be able to help
the response time improve. It also quantitatively attempted to show
that a fast turnaround time helped the discussion significantly, an
observation that some people had made. A good deal of effort was made
to present the data in a positive light, and to show how the data
supported the idea that more moderators would help SRH.
However, Ajay responded by repeatedly claiming that the data is
"skewed", but he didn't provide proof. He suggested three
possibilities causing this alleged "skew", and in response, I posted a
detailed message explaining how the data was collected, what the data
meant, and I answered his claims about how it might be
"skewed". However, this post seems to have been ignored, since Ajay
even recently made the same claim again.
In recent posts, Ajay has stated that the current rate of clearing
article is one that he can sustain. However, what I am curious to know
is - why is the situation any different now than before the RFD was
sent? What caused such a slow clearance rate before, and what has
changed such that the rate is faster now? I ask not to slight Ajay by
any means -- I appreciate Ajay's effort on both alt.hindu and
soc.religion.hindu, and anyone who has visited his GHEN site can see
that a lot of time has been put into making it a very nice site.
Ajay is free to claim that the rate has not changed, but that would be
an insult to the intelligence of people who actually read this group.
Rather, if we are to believe that the new rate is sustainable (and not
just a reaction to the RFD), I want to know _why_ we are to believe
that the rate is sustainable, and what has changed, since after all,
one of the reasons for adding more moderators is to increase the
responsiveness of the group. In addition, some of the longer gaps
between moderation cycles (especially the 10 day gap) seem to be the
result of faulty hardware, and while I don't hold Ajay responsible for
that, I think that having multiple moderators and backup sites for
moderation would do a lot to overcome the computer problems of any one
individual.
Regarding the question of "let's give him a chance since he's shown
improvement", I don't see how it's a question of "let's give him a
chance", since, according to Ajay, the statistics showing his
improvement are incorrect! Given his refusal to believe the
statistics, and given the refusal to even read or respond to the
arguments supporting the statistics, I am inclined to believe that
Ajay doesn't believe there is room for improvement in this regard. I
welcome him to discuss the matter of the statistics with me or any of
the proponents, but every time I've brought up the matter (or someone
else has brought it up), it's been brushed aside with the same three
claims.
This is not a new situation - early in the RFD discussion, I pointed
out that my posts and the posts of some of the other proponents were
not being posted to SRH, and I posted a simple way of verifying
this. In response, Ajay posted a message on SRH basically calling my
charges an "emotional outburst". After the second time this same exact
problem occurred, one of the other proponents complained again. Only
then did Ajay actually examine the problem and discover that there was
a flaw in his posting script which was responsible for the problem.
Granted, I can concede that Ajay might have had a lot on his mind, but
it still bothers me that when I raised a valid point and suggested how
to verify this, rather than examining the complaint, I was brushed
aside rather rudely. Later on, when the complaint was revealed to be
true, Ajay didn't bother to publically acknowledge the problem at all.
Given this history, you can see why I take the issue about the
statistics page seriously - if Ajay doesn't even acknowledge the
possibility that the statistics are correct, why should I believe that
he will be responsive to the needs of the readers in the future?
Improving SRH
-------------
I believe that the either the RFD or Mani's compromise plan are good
starting points for improving SRH. However, since I have not heard
anything from Ajay about steps toward a compromise, I do not see any
point in withdrawing the RFD. Surely there must be something good in
the RFD, right? After all, people besides the RFD proponents and
moderators have spoken out in support of the RFD, so there must be
something they like in the RFD. I am flexible in this regard, so if
there is something in the RFD or in Mani's plan which is objectionable
to Ajay, I am willing to see it changed, but I'd like to see a good
faith start to the discussions. For example, if Ajay were to say
something like "I would agree to the compromise plan if such-and-such
were modified", or something to that effect, then I would be happy to
work with him.
As it currently stands, the RFD phase has been going on for quite some
time, and all of the pertinents questions about the RFD itself have
been answered. The next step in the process is the CFV phase, and I
would still be happy to see Ajay join the moderation team before the
CFV is issued. As I've stated before, the offer is still open. I am
open to compromises, and if we can reach a compromise before the CFV
phase, I would be pleased. So, for the time being, the next step is
out of my hands. If the readers of SRH would like to see a compromise,
I'm sure that you can voice your opinions appropriately. However, the
decision to go forward with the compromise rests with Ajay at this
point.
-Vivek
Thu Jan 18 09:55:37 CST 1996
