[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Peaceful compromise on the Horizon
In article <4dnfba$q3n@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Sam Sanders <sns@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>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.
I think already most people have shown some flexibility
from both sides. we need some parental figure to put
these things together (provided bjp-anti-bjp flares
on another thread do not catch up here!). (im *not*)
(--please make corrections in the following
statements, if i am wrong, since i am essentially writing
from my memory of discussions; but dont start flames, again!)
if by chance, your fingers take precedence over heart
and start responding just by looking at a given point,
please wait until you press the "send" button, and pause,
and reflect: can i bear this,.... to stop the flames?)
(1) V Pai has expressed willingness to discuss the suggestion
(from Raj B?) that Ajay may be given freedom to choose
a couple of co-moderators. (just for record... i opposed it
*at this* stage, since, i thought it might be unfair to the
proposed moderators, but my opinions need not count)
(2) N Tiwari has supported the concept of multiple moderators
provided they are not imposed (*not* his word i guess).(1)
*partly* satisfies his concern. (obviously, in a compromise
you dont find fully satisfied parties,.... only *unsatisfied*
or partly satisfied. so , he should think he is lucky! just
kidding)
(3) N Tiwari has supported the concept of talk.religion.hindu
unmoderated for posts such as muslim demolition of temples,
india-pakistan tensions etc. i dont remember to have seen
serious objections to this proposal, from others either.
(4) Jai M and some others have expressed some reservations
for info group. (even though, again, i am not convinced of
the objections, and even though a recent post by Badrinarayanan
S speaks good of the info proposal), that may be kept on
hold for some time (who am i to recommend, or, to ignore
Badrinarayanan's suggestion?.. i am only thinking aloud!)
(5) Even Ajay shah has implied some problems with the
present charter (i dont know if i am reading between lines,
but his inability to stop, for example anti-saibaba flame
without any rationale, is understood to be due to deficiency
of charter as it exists). (Chandra Shekhar Kambhapathi also
expressed the need for reorg, which for some unknown reasons
i interpreted as need to modify charter!). I do not know if
i can interpret Dhruba C and Ken S posts too as supportive of
this. More over, once a talk group, as in (3) above, is
created, he need *not* feel apologetic about *supressing*
certain view points, since there is going to be another forum
for those voices that do not satisfy higher standards of srh.
("supressing" etc are *not* ajay shah's words).
(6a) my editrial problem: see after (8) for point (6b)!! no time
for corrections..
(7) What are gains and losses: it might prick the egos, but
that is what we tend to analyse in a 'compromise'
(a) Readers of srh -- freedom from personality flame wars,
more valuble than moksha?
(b) Opponents of RFD:
-- Ajay Shah can remain the moderator.
-- Ajay Shah can *not* be removed, since a coule of moderators
are going to be chosen by him.
-- 2 of the 5 moderators plus Ajay Shah are their win.
-- They can get rid of info group.
-- They still have an unmoderated talk group to discuss any
future grievances.
(c) Proponents of RFD
-- They still can select 2 moderators
-- The charter will be modified to get a clearer definition of
what will be allowed, and what will not be allowed, and
provisions for good conduct of moderatorship.
-- they get multiple moderators.
-- they still have an unmoderated talk group to discuss any
future grievances.
(d) Current moderator Ajay Shah
-- Retains moderatorship
-- can now choose two more of moderators.
-- reduced work load, and increased leisure
-- loses a little free-way in moderation.
(e) Proposed moderators (selected on to the panel)
-- moderatorship
(f) Potential moderators to be selected by Ajay Shah
-- moderatorship
(g) Moderators proposed but not retained:
-- dissatisfaction that they are left out.
-- some satisfaction, that indirectly they contributed to
peaceful srh.
(h) What i get???
-- I lose almost all points! (test of good compromise is
that everyone should feel that way!)
-- some false hope accomplishment!! (just kidding)
(8) Curiosity questions:
(a) Do i have authorization from proponents to offer this?
NO.
(b) Did i consult them before writing this?
NO
(c) Do i have authorization from opponents of RFD?
NO
(d) Did I consult them before writing this?
NO
(e) Am I speaking on behalf of any group of individuals or readers?
NO. just on behalf of myself!
(f) Whom should we be greatful if it gains acceptance?
To ourselves. (I will, *however* be greatful to Mani Varadarajan
since he spelled the good word 'compromise' first, but you need
not!)
(6b) I remember strong objetion coming from *only* Tiwari N
(that does not mean it is any less significant) about wording
of 'political crap' out of the srh. Call-for-action to be out
is acceptable to him, i guess. Even political articles being
out is *not* opposed by him, but he is not happy with the
current wording. Any good-linguists can try to word it
properly.
There could be many spelling and grammatical errors, but i am
posting anyway. if it is horribly bad i might consider later.
regards
