[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH reorganization
In article <4cb5hq$bns@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Dhruba Chakravarti <dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu> wrote:
>Dear Friends:
>
>I come in as a spectator of the discussion of SRH reorg plan, and
>I humbly state my own preference on this matter now, instead of
>later. I watched uncomfortably as our SRH became more of a replica of
>news.group instead of a moderated discussion group of Hinduism. I
>object to this.
The RFD requested that all discussions about this topic take place in
news.groups. However, Ajay consulted with others and decided to allow
discussion to take place in SRH, and that's fine by me. It has not
been my intention to "drown out" SRH with this discussion, but given
that various accusations, etc., are being leveled on SRH, it makes
sense for me to reply on SRH.
>I understand that such discussions are about this
>very newsgroup, but since a remarkable indifference to the
>sensibilities of many of us who voiced their opinions/apprehensions is on
>display, it appears to me that the reorganization plan in its present form
>does not include the much lauded "many voices" of Hinduism.
I am not sure that I understand your reference about "a remarkable
indifference to the sensibilities...", etc. After all, note that we
are working towards a compromising rather than going for a CFV. Mani
has offered a compromise solution, and I have been discussing various
aspects of the RFD with Raj Bhatnagar.
I would personally prefer to see some sort of compromise reached, but
realize that both sides need to be cooperative. I'm afraid that if a
compromise is not reached, the CFV is somewhat inevitable.
>I say that
>despite my support of the expressed intention of the reorg plan: 'to make a
>good thing better'.
>
>More specifically, I expect that the objections of major contributors to
>SRH such as Sri Nachiketa Tiwariji, Sri Bon Giovanniji, Sri Jai Maharajji and
>of the others are heeded, and not pushed aside.
Once again, I don't recall any valid points of the above individuals
to have gone unanswered, but if you could summarize a list of
objections, I would be more than happy to address them. I say "valid
points" not to duck responsibility here, but let's just say that some
of the "conspiracy theory" and "censorship" threads have been, well,
lacking in reasonable discussion.
>Otherwise, when the votes
>come up, I will be voting no to reorg. I see my no vote as basically
>two things:
>
>(1) a vote in favor of the continuation of a successful and excellent
>forum and,
>(2) a recognition of the investment of time and efforts by Ajayji.
If this is the case, then please work with us to a compromise solution,
or convince Ajay to join the moderation team. The offer for Ajay to
be a moderator in the reorg RFD still stands.
However, I don't see how a "no" vote accomplishes anything - more
moderators will definitely help SRH, and having a reduction in delay
time would also be a good thing. Voting "no" is like throwing out the
baby with the bathwater - if there is something in the RFD which you
don't like, we can discuss it. Rejecting it out of hand seems like a
pointless thing to do.
-Vivek
(submitted around Tue Jan 2 13:33:35 CST 1996)
