[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH reorganization
In article <4cnmvs$oa9@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Dhruba Chakravarti <dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu> wrote:
>Vivek Sadananda Pai (vivek@cs.rice.edu) wrote:
>: Rather than just not interfering, it would be helpful if you helped
>: work towards a compromise.
>: rather to address their concerns, and that's why I asked you to list
>: any concerns which you feel have not been addressed. Please do so.
>
>I would not be so presumptuous as to try to represent anybody else,
>therefore, I will limit to my views only, as you ask me to do.
I asked you to raise the points you feel had not been addressed,
because I got the definite impression from your earlier post that you
felt that some points were being ignored. I don't feel that we've
ignored any serious points, so that's why I asked that you bring up
any you felt had not been answered.
>My formula
>for a compromise would be,
>
>1. Let us heed to popular opinion on keeping Ajayji as the sole moderator
>for the present. In the least, this one thing will bring us back together.
I don't think that popular opinion calls for a single moderator. In
fact, I'd venture that of the people who've spoken on this topic, most
either feel that multiple moderators are a good idea, or are not
opposed to multiple moderators.
As I've stated before, one of the benefits of multiple moderators
would be the improvements in turnaround time. Only since the RFD was
sent to Ajay has he somewhat consistently had a 2-day clearance delay
for posts, and look around - even the non-RFD discussions on this
group are growing in number.
Having multiple moderators makes sense from a practical perspective.
>2. It appears that you have reservations about the present charter of
>the SRH. Let us discuss what you would like to suggest as improvements
>and also discuss how the suggestions could be implemented.
>
>: I have not seen _any_ cut-and-paste jobs from the people involved with
>: the RFD. Please elaborate.
>
>I meant by the people who presented the evidences that the conspiracy
>existed. Sorry for my bad english.
Thank you for stating this.
>: I never had an ulterior motive. I believe that I've even made the
>: offer that I would be willing to swear to this in front of Deities,
>: and I don't take that lightly.
>
>I accept your word, but I can not speak for anybody else.
If I felt that any of the other proponents were conspiring against
Ajay, then I wouldn't be part of this proposal.
>: What would be more helpful is a point-by-point list of things you
>: would like to discuss regarding the RFD itself. After all, this is
>: supposed to be about the RFD, and not theories.
>
>This calls for a careful study. I have not done that yet, thinking that
>unless the charter is extremely restrictive, it should be possible to
>express every kind of opinion. If not, there are other newsgroups,
>including the soc.culture.indian.
Well, the new RFD does disallowing certain types of postings which
have no place on a religious newsgroup, such as postings of pure
politics, or postings written to try to cause hatred. However, at the
same time, there is a provision for an unmoderated group called
talk.religion.hindu, where people can discuss things in an unmoderated
arena.
>For example, I was not sure if a
>discussion on the challenges of coexistence for Hindus among themselves and
>with others would be proper in SRH, so I sent a personal mail to the
>present moderator, and got his OK. I will be starting a thread on this soon.
Although I haven't seen the articles (obviously), from what you've
said above, it sounds like it would be covered under either charter.
>I think that Rajiv Varmaji also uses a similar approach, as I read him
>say that unless he does not feel it to be appropriate, he does not send
>any article to the SRH.
My point when I mentioned Rajiv Varma's articles was that the long
delays often seen on SRH caused discussion to move elsewhere.
-Vivek
(submitted around Sun Jan 7 13:48:18 CST 1996)
