[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: SRH: Towards a peaceful compromise


Let me make one thing clear. I am not against the re-org move neither am
I against the compormise proposals. Just as I do not like some of the
compromise proposals I  do not like the others. This aint a perfect
world. Similarly getting a consensus is neigh on impossible - and I am
sure that there will be some people would would demand for a CFV -
whether you like it or not. A CFV SHOULD NOT BE AVOIDED - ELSE SIMILAR
ACCUSATIONS could start flying around and the whole process would have
to be started again - and this is much more DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEWSGROUP
than a CFV WOULD BE NOW.

Anyway let me now address the point in your post. I must thank you for
that mild manner for your replies - I expected something more
vociferous.

In article <4duera$gj4@babbage.ece.uc.edu> you wrote:

<...lines deleted...>

: 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

Any initial proposal which has been RFD'ed has to be modified in light
of the discussions - and hence it gets compromise hue. Now some may
disagree violently with it, some may agree completely with it and some
may be in agreement with parts of it (but say yes to it all). This
conflict will only be resolved with a CFV on the NEW COMPROMISE
PROPOSALS. YOU CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT TRY TO GET THE THING THRU WITH A
NOD OF THE HEAD. THAT IS NOT REAL POLITIC (AND I WOULD STRONGLY PROTEST
AGAINST THAT) MY reasons for this are 

(a) in a few years time we could see similar scenes
(b) accusations of personal fiefdoms can be hurled ( I am sure that is
not the intent here and now)
(c) Moderators and other cannot be subjected to popular views (as is the
case with one of the points in this discussion)
(d) If moderators need to be changed there will be a very quick resort
to smoke filled room deals - remember SRI.


<..lines deleted...>

: 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

maybe not not now. But a few months (years and perhaps even days) the
bad feeling are going to come out. CFV is the only alternative.

<...line deleted...>

: 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.

Pai - you accused me (did not allege) that I was not living in the real
world in another context. If you believe in the concept of utopia being
SRH than you are not living in the real world.


: 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.


THAT IS PRECISELY MY POINT. YOU HAVE STATED IT IN THE MOST PRECISE
MANNER. THAT IS THE STATE OF THINGS ON SRH RIGHT NOW. WHY CARRY ON WITH
THE SAME?

The compromise is there. The original proposal should just be amended and
CFV'ed. NOt having a CFV is a bad move - whether there is a total
consensus or not. LET THE VOTE BE ON RECORD!

: 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.

THre is a compromise in front of you. THe orignal RFD document had a
number of proposals and these have been discussed and a number of
alternatives have been suggetsted. Amend the original and you have the
compromise document. AND I REPEAT AGAIN - WHETHER THERE IS A TOTAL
AGREEMENT (CONSENSUAL (AS IN YOUR DEF OF COMPROMISE)) OR WHATEVER go for
a CFV AND GET THE WHOLE THING ON RECORD.

<...line deleted...>

: 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.

I am sure you did not like the repeats. Well there you have it....

<...lines deleted...>


: 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.

I glad re: the first half. re; the second half a CFV is needed- that is
the only true measure of the feedback.

: that this was a back room meeting, since the "back room" was in a
: daycare facility - not exactly a corridor of power.

Yes - the most innocent of places are venues for these "back room"
stuff. ;-)

<...lines deleted...>

: 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.

Yes - you yourself have stated it. I donot have to do it. I am glad you
realise it.

<...lines deleted..>

: Sorry, but after your last statements, I have a hard time taking you
: seriously now.

I have not been able to take this whole discussion very seriously and
have had to employ a heavy filter - which has come to its end - and
somewhere along the line the points disappeared!

<...lines deleted...>

: 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

I glad you said it - but the "I" and "you" are worrying - for it is not
me that you need to satisfy - I am just incendental to this whole
business and have no illusionas about it!

-Chandrasekhar
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.