[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
SRH: Yet another FAQ (the "Real FAQ")
A list of questions and topics regarding SRH was mailed to me, so I
thought I'd take the opportunity to address some of the questions
asked. Since my FAQ was disparagingly called the "FA(ke)Q" by Ajay, I
guess one should assume that these questions are the "Real FAQ"... ;-)
-Vivek
(submitted around Sun Jan 7 21:49:57 CST 1996)
|> 1. Creation of Soc.Religion.Hindu newsgroup and its policies
SRH was created as the result of a Usenet vote, and its policies are
the same as that of its predecessor, alt.hindu.
|> 2. Were there "oversight" in creating the SRH charter?
The charter used was essentially the same charter as that of alt.hindu.
|> 3. How was the present moderator selected for SRH?
The moderator was the same as the proponent of SRH, Ajay Shah. He was
the moderator for alt.hindu.
|> 4. Is SRH democratically run newsgroup?
Yes and no - there is only one moderator, and he is the final
authority in all matters. There are no provisions for appealing the
decision of the moderator, so in that sense, there's no democracy. The
"democratic" aspect of the newsgroup comes in when he asks for input
on some matters, such as whether not-directly-relevant posts will be
allowed.
|> 5. How are the moderation policies changed in SRH?
The moderator can ask for input, or he can institute changes
unilaterally.
|> 6. The SRH Re-organization Move
Information about the RFD can be found at
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh.html
|> 7. Who are the proponents of SRH Re-organization?
As mentioned in the RFD, the proponents are:
Mani Varadarajan <mani@srirangam.esd.sgi.com>
Henry Groover <HGroover@Qualitas.com>
Vijay Sadananda Pai <vijaypai@ece.rice.edu>
Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu>
Shrisha Rao <shrao@nyx.cs.du.edu>
Most of them have been or still are active contributors to SRH and its
predecessor, alt.hindu, as a scan of the archives for the newsgroups
will show.
|> 8. What is the proof that the SRH Re-org carried is out as a
revange for the current moderator's stance on inclusion of word Hindu
in the name of Soc.religion.vaishnava newsgroup?
There is none, since it is just a conspiracy theory floated by a few
individuals to try to derail discussion of the RFD. Every time someone
comes up with a new angle on this "conspiracy" (usually by digging up
and old post and removing much context), the charges have been proved
false.
|> 9. What has been the stand of the proponents of SRH Re-organization
about the word Hindu?
All of them use the word Hindu very often. It's a good word, and it's
become part of the English language all over the world. Most of the
proponents publically state that they are Hindu.
|> 10. Is the real interest in expansion of Hindu newsgroups on the net?
Yes, in addition to some of the other things mentioned in the SRH FAQ,
available at http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-faq.html Some of
the other interests are faster response times and more focused
discussion of the various issues.
|> 11. Is the message-volume on SRH too high or too low?
Historically, the message volume on SRH has suffered from the long
delays between moderation events, the times when the moderator
approves postings. Statistics on this phenomenon can be found at
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-stats.html
|> 12. Is there any truth to the "posting delay on SRH" accusation?
Very much so, and the statistics page bears this out. In addition, an
elaboration of the statistics page was posted to SRH, which explains
how the data for the statistics page was collected, and how one can
independently verify it.
|> 13. Has the present moderator rejected postings on SRH based on his
personal beliefs?
He has rejected postings on alt.hindu, and the same policies apply to
SRH, so it is safe to conclude that the same postings would have been
rejected on SRH, unless the moderator has had a change of heart. The
new moderation guidelines state that this behavior is not acceptable,
and the reader has the option of "appealing" one moderator's decision
to any of the other moderators.
|> 14. Why have you included the pointers to Home Pages of SRH Re-org
proponents in the Hindu Universe WWW site?
Their home pages aren't included, but some of the pages they have
constructed are included, since these pages are of interest to a wide
variety of people, including Hindus. The pages are well-constructed,
and since the proponents state that they are Hindus, it makes sense to
include these pages in the GHEN.
|> 15. Comparision Between SRH and SRV
SRV is moderated by software, which only does a simple check for one
of several keywords to accept a post. SRH is moderated by humans, so
while such simple checks can be done, it is pointless to limit the
checks to such a narrow range. Badrinarayan Seshadri has explained in
detail many of the questions about why SRH and SRV are different.
|> 16. Since the proponents/moderators of SRV and SRH-reorg. the same,
they should have the same criteria for moderation, right?
Absolutely not, since one is just a software program, and the other
assumes the human moderators use intelligence and their judgement.
|> 17. Are Call For Actions etc. would be disallowed in SRH, can you
tell use why Are they allowed in SRV?
SRV doesn't check for the presence of keywords to disallow any post.
Posts are never rejected because of content - only because of the lack
of keywords. The keywords list is publically available, and has not
changed significantly (if at all) since the beginning of the
newsgroup.
|> 18. The Politics of SRH Re-organization move
Politics is another type of posting which doesn't belong on a religion
newsgroup, unless the posting appeals to a nonpolitical audience. So,
all politics would be moved out of SRH.
|> 19. Where was the SRH Re-organization proposal posted, and where it
wasn't?
The posting was sent to a variety of groups, including
soc.culture.indian, alt.india.progressive, and soc.religion.hindu. The
various groups represent a wide cross-section of Hindu thought, and
they were chosen to try to include as many different types of people
as possible. Not all of the SCI* groups were included, because the
message can only be sent to a number of groups such that the total
number of characters in the "Newsgroups:" line is less than 200.
|> 20. Was Ajay Shah "offered" a moderators position during
re-organization RFD preparation period and did he decline? Why?
He was offered a position, and he declined, but the offer still
stands.
