[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH: Towards a peaceful compromise
In my earlier article, I stated that I felt a compromise solution
required input from Ajay in order to be successful. I still believe
that, and I'm at something of a loss to understand what is the basis
of the following article. Nonetheless, I wish to address many of the
issues raised, although I feel that much of this article consists of
accusations which are unwarranted.
However, let me be clear where my line of thought originates - a few
readers of SRH have now called for a compromise solution, and I am not
at all opposed to a compromise solution. A compromise could be reached
if all parties involved reach a workable solution, which then somehow
gets a nod of approval from the readers. I believe that since Ajay is
one of the main opponents of the RFD, his input would be essential for
a compromise.
A compromise solution of this form would avert a CFV, and I feel that
this would be in the best interests of this newsgroup. I have no
desire to "divide" the Hindus, and that's why I'd would see a
compromise reached. The following article seems to suggest that a
compromise solution, rather than being a good thing, is somehow an
attempt at retribution. I fail to see how that claim can be made in
light of the above.
I feel that a compromise solution would be the fastest and friendliest
way of settling this issue, and if there are people who agree with me
on this matter, I urge you to speak up on SRH and make your voices
heard.
In article <4dpf2h$mog@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
C. Kambhampati <shskambh@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>A compromise is a needed.
I'm glad we both agree.
>But really does it need Ajay Shah's agreement.
Well, let's put it this way - right now, Ajay is the sole moderator of
the group, and he is one of the people opposed to the changes
described under the reorg RFD. In my opinion, a compromise could be
reached without a CFV phase, as long as it's done openly, so, in that
sense, it most definitely would need Ajay's agreement.
However, if by compromise, you mean an amended form of the RFD going
to the CFV phase, then no, it does not need Ajay's agreement at all,
but this presupposes that there are points in the RFD that others
would like to see changed. This scenario also assumes that the amended
RFD would meet with the approval of most of the current dissenters
while not meeting with Ajay's approval. While that's definitely
possible, I haven't seen anything which fits this bill so far.
>Come on we are a part and parcel of this group - whether we contribute
>to it or are just silent readers. The fact that the FOCUS IS ON AJAY
>SHAH AND NOT ON THE READERS (WHO ARE A DAMN SIGHT MORE IMPORTANT THAN
>THE FEW VOCIFEROUS PEOPLE AROUND) can lead to one conclusion only - that
>this is in some way get the blasted guys for they tried to stop us.
What do you mean "not the readers?". Many of the people who have
spoken up in favor of changes to SRH have suggested changes that would
benefit the readers, and that's the whole point of the RFD. It is a
Request For Discussion, and in the discussion, it is expected that
suggestions can be incorporated into the RFD. However, much of the
opposition to the RFD has been launched by Ajay, and given that he
_is_ the current moderator of this group and has done quite a lot for
this group and alt.hindu, it makes sense to address his concerns as
well as the concerns of the readers.
Note that whenever _anyone_ raised a question about the RFD itself, it
was answered. I fail to see how you can claim the focus is _not_ on
the readers.
>AJAY SHAH's non-support for SRV didnot stop its formation.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is true, but realize that this is a different issue altogether -
there was no SRV at the time that the RFD was issued, and there is no
connection between SRH and SRV.
>Similarly
>^^^^^^^^^^
>AJAY SHAH's permission and agreement is of no consequence whatsoever to
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the reorg business.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If this RFD goes to the CFV phase, then your statement above is
correct. However, I would like to see some sort of compromise reached
which avoids a full CFV, but instead just gets a consensus nod of the
readership. I believe that this would be far less divisive, and would
be in the best interests of the newsgroup. In that vein, it makes
sense to try to build consensus, and doing so would require input from
the current moderator.
>So can we exclude Ajay Shah from being the focus of the attention. SRH
>is not his property nor is it mine nor is it any one person's
I don't believe that Ajay is the focus of attention, either in the RFD
or the compromise. However, to suggest that a compromise _not_ include
Ajay is ridiculous, since that would be the whole point of the
compromise - addressing issues raised by those opposed to the RFD in
its current form.
Let's get our definitions straight here - in your opinion, what would
be the path that a compromise solution would take?
>
>Vivek Sadananda Pai (vivek@cs.rice.edu) wrote:
>
><...some lines deleted....>
>
>: The path to a compromise/improvement
>: ------------------------------------
>
><...lines deleted...>
>
>: 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.
>
>Ajay Shah's name being taken up twice in the space of a few lines. Raj
>Bhatnagar and Ajay Shah donot make SRH.
I mention Raj's name to show that discussions I had with him in trying
to reach a middle ground went nowhere, since Ajay ended up not
commenting on anything we had discussed.
As for Ajay's name showing up repeatedly, what is your point? If the
entire point of a compromise is for both sides to reach an agreement,
then since Ajay is one of the main people in opposition, it makes
sense to mention his name.
>
>: 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.
>
>Again Ajay Shah.
>
>If you have an axe to grind re:Ajay Shah plase do it in another context.
>Reorg of SRH is much to important for this sort of business.
I fail to see what your complaint is in this section - if you have
something to say about what I've said, then say so. Tell me how you
want to reach a compromise, whose input should be ignored, and how you
plan to institute the compromise. If your view of a compromise is an
amended RFD which goes to a full CFV, then say so, but realize that
pointless stabs like the one above are just that - pointless.
>: 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.
>
>Again A. Shah and friends and "BACK ROOM" discussions.
>
>This is really insulting. Why this back room discussions.
I decided to meet with Vijay Pallod to let him see that I was a normal
person and was reasonable. I had no intention of striking any sort of
agreement away from everyone else which would somehow take place
without everyone's agreement - as Mani pointed out in another note, we
want things done in the open, and that's why there has been so much
discussion about a compromise here on SRH itself.
>SRH is not
>anyones personal FIEFDOM. If people want personal fiefdoms let them
>create one themselves.
I am not sure what to make of the above statement.
>: 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.
>
>Why do you find it difficult?
Let me put it this way - have Dhrubaji or Singamji expressed any
reservations about the RFD itself? I have not seen any. They have
called for the people who support the RFD and the people who oppose
the RFD to talk to iron out their differences. The expectation is that
if a compromise can be reached, then it would be in everyone's best
interests.
>Or do you feel that if there is a vote and
>you get carried through it would all have been a bit of waste of time
I feel that a compromise plan is much less likely to generate bad
feelings than a CFV would, and I think it's safe to say that other
people probably feel the same. Given that, doesn't it make sense to
try to reach a compromise rather than going for a full CFV?
>and that the lesson being taught to A.Shah (and others) to keep stum
>would have been lost. The more I read about this the more I feel that
>re-org discussion is a SHAM and that the improvement of SRH is not the
>main aim.
I don't follow your logic at all, but I think that it probably stems
from a difference of what we envision as a compromise. It seems that
in your view, a compromise isn't an attempt to find a middle ground
between all parties, but just to make a few changes to the RFD. If
that is the case, then I can see why you think that Ajay should be
ignored, but that's not my view of what a compromise should be.
So, if I am correct of what you view as a compromise, by all means,
give us feedback on what you think should be changed in the RFD, and
let's discuss it.
>
>: 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.
>
>Lets us have a CFV. This newgroup is not the property of any one
>individual. If anyone thinks that this is the case they are surely
>mistaken. Just as A.Shah's call for non-support of SRV amounted to
>little, are people afraid of having a CFV.
I am not at all afraid of having a CFV, but I feel that a more
"peaceful" solution is definitely possible, and would be in the best
interests of all people.
>THIS REALLY SMACKS OF MEET ME BEHIND THE BYCYCLE SHED TYPE OF THING.
Given that I've never met anyone behind a bicycle shed, I don't know
what that smacks you of.
>A CALL FOR VOTE IS A MUST IS THIS CASE - OTHERWISE THIS WHOLE BUSINESS
>WOULD BE A CONFIDENCE TRICK PLAYED ON THE PEOPLE - THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTE
>TO SRH AND THOSE WHO READ IT.
If you want a full CFV (and I mean that in the Usenet sense, not in
some sort of informal vote taken on SRH itself), then what suggestions
do you think need to be included in the compromise, and from whom
should those suggestions come? As far as I know, there has been ample
time for feedback on the RFD, and I haven't seen any new comments on
the RFD in a long time.
>
><...lines deleted...>
>
>: 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.
>
>HIS VIEWS ARE NOT IMPORTANT. THE DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND LET
>THERE BE A CFV. AND LET THE PEOPLE THAT MATTER DECIDE. SRH and other
>newsgroups are not the platforms for egos.
Fine - I'm more than willing to go to a CFV, and it is the natural
course of things. The attempt at a compromise is an attempt to find a
way of appeasing everyone, but if that fails and a compromise can't be
reached, I will most definitely push for a full CFV.
>
>: 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.
>
>IN the space of four lines Ajay has been mentioned thrice and (twice in
>one line).
While you're at it, would you like to count how many times you've made
statements of that sort? That would be about as interesting as the
statements themselves.
>
>
><....lines deleted....>
>
>The deleted lines are pretty boring for they mention Ajay shah in
>practically everyline. Let me repeat once again - Ajay Shah is not
>important for the existence of SRH or any other newsgroup. He is
>immaterial. He is one of the many. His arguments may carry weight and
>may not carry weight. What matters is the majority.
I agree that the majority is important, but let's consider something
here - the proponents are at one end of the spectrum of discussion
regarding the RFD, so to speak, and Ajay can be said to be at the
other. If some compromise is reached such that it is agreeable to both
parties, then isn't is safe to assume that it'll be agreeable to most
people?
I have absolutely no intention of "pulling a fast one" on the
readership of SRH, and even if we reach a compromise, I don't have any
intention of trying to implement it without some sort of feedback from
the readership.
>Have we lost sight
>of basic democracy and have inbibed the old feudal trick of back room
As Mani has pointed out, we have no intention of trying to hide any
agreements reached.
>deals (the "BACK ROOM" DISCUSSIONS do seem to be pointing in that
>direction). This is normally, the back room stuff, done to teach a
>blighter (ress) a lesson - sort of an ambush behind the bycycle shed.
Perhaps the misunderstanding here stems from a difference of idiom in
the UK and America. Here, a back room discussion has no connotation of
an ambush or an attempt to injure anyone. Quite the opposite - it is
usually a way for two sides to productively reach some sort of
agreement by having as few distractions as possible, but it is often
viewed as something of a power play, and I believe that this is the
reason why Mani has stated that he wants things done in the open. I am
not interested in any power, and I have stated before that I have no
desire to run SRH in any way. I was willing to privately meet with
people who wanted to discuss the RFD, and I humorously pointed out
that this was a back room meeting, since the "back room" was in a
daycare facility - not exactly a corridor of power.
>: 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.
>
>A number of points. You have mentioned the "COMPROMISE PLAN". I have
>read it in various posts, and agree with some and disagree with some.
Then state what you like and state what you dislike - that's the whole
point of the RFD phase. However, if the compromise plan is not going
to be the one put to the CFV, then it would be better if you commented
on the RFD itself.
>This plan has been mentioned here - thats it. Nothing else is mentioned.
>Perhaps all the good points being alluded to are in ether. But then Ajay
>Shah's name is sprinkled all over.
I haven't read the compromise plan in a few days, but when I last read
it, I didn't remember it focusing on Ajay, since the focus was on
reaching common ground.
>Hey - there are other ways of getting rid of Ajay Shah. It could have
>been done very easily by calling for a vote of no confidence on him. Or
<start sarcasm>
Yeah, a vote of no confidence - that wouldn't have been at
all insulting would it? That would just do wonders for soothing
tensions on this newsgroup.
<end sarcasm>
>by simply having a CFV - the whole thing could have been done and over
>with in a few days. Unless ofcourse this is not what is wanted but the
>motive is to teach people a lesson by making their lives a misery.
<start sarcasm>
Boy, reaching a compromise would sure teach him a lesson all right -
he'd still be involved with the newsgroup, and that would be so much
more painful than a vote of no confidence and the ensuing hostility
<end sarcasm>
Sorry, but after your last statements, I have a hard time taking you
seriously now.
Usenet rules require an RFD period and a CFV. Each of these have a
specified minimum length, and that's what we've _been_ doing here.
Nothing would've been over "in a few days". The RFD, CFV, and
gaps take a total time of over 6 weeks.
>HEY - I HAVE LEARNT IT ALREADY. THIS WOULD BE MY LAST MESSAGE ON THIS
>AND PERHAPS I MAY EVEN GIVE THE GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPONENTS A
>WIDE BERTH AND AVOID THEM - FOR LIFE CAN BE A REAL MISERY.
>
>So what - I hear - this guy would not make on ebit of difference. I
>agree with you wholeheartedly. I wish you would say the same for A.Shah,
>M. Varadarajan, V.S.Pai, and all the others -
I have no idea what you are trying to convey in the above two
paragraphs, and that's putting it mildly.
>: 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
>
>No - LET THERE BE A VOTE TAKEN FOR THE MODERATORS. THEN THE MODERATORS
>ARE ELECTED BY POPULAR CHOICE AND WE WOULD HAVE TO WITNESS THE SCENES OF
>THE PAST FEW WEEKS.
You may not be aware of how a vote occurs on Usenet, but the election
of moderators is part and parcel of the reorg itself. You can't just
have a vote separately on each moderator. That's why there is the RFD
phase - so people can say their peace about any of the moderators, and
suggest others if necessary.
>: 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.
>
>NO THE DECISION DOES NOT REST WITH A.SHAH YOU OR ME. IT RESTS WITH THE
>PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE NEWSGROUP.
>
>LET THERE BE
>
>(A) A CFV
>(B) AN ELECTION OF MODERATORS
See above about (b).
I am more than willing to have (a).
>LET POPULIST DEMOCRACY REGIEN SUPREME - RATHER THAN HAVE "BACK ROOM"
>DEALS THRUST DOWN UPON THE READERSHIP OF THIS NEWSGROUP.
Let me assure you that I have no intention of "thrusting" anything
upon you. Even if a compromise is reached, I fully intend on having a
period of open discussion and, if there is any hint of objection to
the compromise, some sort of vote.
-Vivek
Sat Jan 20 16:00:47 CST 1996
