[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Towards a peaceful compromise
I agree wholeheartedly with Sri Singam.
Please come to a compromise..eliminate the RFD and work togethar.
I urge both sides to show flexibility and not spoil SRH.
In <4df2p5$68r@babbage.ece.uc.edu> vijia@pop.jaring.my (Singam) writes:
>
>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
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Subm.: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu Admin:
srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
>Archives/Home Page:
http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
>
