[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
SRH reorg: charges about SRV answered
In article <4cnned$ock@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, Ajay Shah <editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu> writes:
|> Namaskar,
|>
|> On Fri, 5 Jan 1996, Vivek Sadananda Pai wrote:
|>
|> > In article <4ciih8$lu1@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
|> > Ajay Shah <editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu> wrote:
|> > [ entirely snipped an article which mentions SRV more than SRH]
|>
|> Why Vivekji? Perhaps because you could not answer any of the points
|> raised in there?
The following article was posted to news.groups by Badrinarayanan Seshadri,
and I think that this answers many of the charges made about why SRV and
SRH differ. It was posted on 7 Jan 1996 22:05:41 GMT and had a messageID
of <4cpg3l$49n@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
-Vivek
(submitted around Mon Jan 8 15:20:36 CST 1996)
-------- start of Badri's article --------------
A disclaimer to begin with. I am not involved with the
soc.religion.hindu re-organization proposal, due to various
reasons. I have not argued for or against any parties in
the various threads spawned by this RFD and I am not
planning to enter into these debates in future either. I
was one of the active proponents for the auto-moderated
soc.religion.vaishnava newsgroup. Therefore, I feel it my
duty to answer many of the questions that Ajay Shah raises
here.
This message is posted *only* to news.groups since I do not
see any reason for crossposting this to soc.religion.hindu.
Ajay Shah (editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu) wrote:
<snipped>
* What are the provisions in SRV charter for replacing the hardware and
* software maintainers? None.
Not necessary. SRV charter is very well focussed. SRV
auto-moderator lives physically in my machine in Cornell
and the software and the hardware maintainers have access
to that account. The hardware and software maintainers do
not create the policies for the moderation of the channel.
The charter and the moderation policy as issued in the CFV
remain final. The hardware/software maintainers merely
carry out the details according to the charter and the
moderation policy. The auto-moderator does not censor
postings based on content. In other words, even people who
are intend on absuing the newsgroup can get their filth
posted to the newsgroup if only they follow the guidelines
for posting to the newsgroup. Therefore, there is no cause
for dispute between the moderators and the participants of
the newsgroup. Therefore, there is no need for a provision
to replace the hardware and software maintainers.
* What are the provisions in SRV charter for multiple machine/multiple site
* moderation? None.
Not necessary. The articles posted to the newsgroup get
injected to the news spool immediately. There is absolutely
no delay at the moderator-tool receiving the article. Only
when the moderation is done by *humans*, there is a need
for multiple moderators (to avoid the delay, if the input
is really high).
* What are the provisions in SRV charter for replacing the programmer (who
* is effectively a moderator)? None.
There is no need. The program is open. The program merely
performs what the charter and moderation policy in the CFV
stated. The software maintainer can not, at a later date,
make changes to the program to introduce extra restriction.
That will effectively mean overriding the charter and hence
immediate action can be taken against the moderators and
they *can* be removed. The moderators are not to tamper
with the charter and the moderation policy of the newsgroup
on their own.
* What is the provision in SRV charter for removing call-for-action? None.
There is none. Because it is not needed. The charter very
specifically discourages many kind of postings and yet such
postings *can* seep into the newsgroup. This is because SRV
did not go for content-based moderation and rather went for
removing cross-posted filth.
SRH, however, has a content-based moderation. Therefore, it
is imperative that one decides on exactly *what* content it
should have.
For example, SRV will allow an anti-vaishnava posting while
SRH, by its very charter does not allow a anti-Hindu
posting.
* What if the SRV host machine has problems on a given day, due to upgrade
* schedules or a breakdown? Why aren't there multiple sites hosting SRV?
Nothing can be done about it. I suggest you think about a
scheme whereby one can have auto-moderators along with
moderation from multiple sites (!!). The moderation from
multiple sites is possible only if we have human
moderators.
The auto-moderation tool is on a cron job and hence as soon
as the machine is up, the moderation will proceed
automatically. That is the best possible mechanism one can
think of when one goes for auto-moderation. To compare that
with human moderation and expecting to have similar
charters and moderation policies for both is not right.
Now, if the current proponents of SRH.re-org had gone for
an auto-moderated SRH, and yet had very different charters
and moderation policies, I would be on your side.
* All this seems like clear double standard to me. And I am sure to many
* others observing this debate. So why these moderation policy double
* standards?
I have not found any double standards with respect to the
moderation policies as such. I would be glad to continue
the discussion further on these points, if you so desire.
* Simple, because the proponents of SRH re-org who were among the most
* vocal supporters of SRV creation want to maintain their strong hold on
* SRV, but destroy/control SRH.
I must say that this is a bit of a stretch. Most of the
proponents of SRH have no say (except Henry Groover and
Mani Varadharajan) regarding the daily workings of the
auto-moderator. The moderation bot does not and will not
relax the rules for Messers Shrisha Rao, Vijay and Vivek
Pai and even Mani and Henry. Therefore, there is no fear
that SRV is under the strong hold of the above mentioned
individuals. I desist from making any comments regarding
SRH.
<deleted>
* So, as one of the proponents of SRV, what rrestrictions have you placed
* on the behavior of the software writer, maintainer, hardware maintainer?
* None! right? Sounds like double standards to me!
No restrictions are needed on the software writer,
maintainer etc. but restrictions *are* placed on the
software itself. In other words, the software must be
irreproachable and a vaishnava:-) We do not care about the
software writer. The software passed muster during the
voting. Therefore it is bonafide. Please do inform me if
you see the moderators trying to modify the software
against the charter and the moderation policies of the
newsgroup as published in the CFV. Then we can proceed to
remove them from the post.
* ajay
--badri
--
--------------------------------------------------
S.Badrinarayanan
Graduate Student
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Cornell University
--------------------------------------------------
