[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Status on RFD on reorganization of soc.religion.hindu
In article <4qsi0h$jh@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>What is the current status of the RFD?
>
>Is there going to be a CFV? Why is it taking so long?
>
>I haven't been reading news.groups for a while now, since there seemed to be
>no discussion on the RFD for quite sometime and I thought the plan had been
>scuttled. Can anyone esp, the proposers and/or Ajay Shah enlighten me?
>
>Thank you very much.
>
>Ramakrishnan.
>
>PS: If you read this in srh, please post your reply to news.groups also.
The RFD was discussed, as you know for months. then the status was
reported for over SIX months. All these days, the moderator of
the news.announce.newsgroups had granted the exception to the
general rule that RFD of over 60 days cannot go to the CFV stage.
Suddenly, we hear that the proposal was discussed in some *restricted*
mailing list by the moderator of the n.a.n. and without explaining the
reasons the proposal was *killed* -- to the best of my understanding
from the recent posts.
I strongly feel that this *surreptious* killing of the proposal
without discussing it on the open forum like news.groups, and
without giving opportunity to the readership or potential
readership of the srh news group to participate in such a
discussion is not a decent action.
If the proposal fails on a vote, it is a different matter.
Basically, there were no serious objections that i can
recall on *technical* grounds of potential traffic or
name space issues.
Given historical background, the allegation that the proposal
is for unseating the current moderator is false and far fetched.
For, the offer of moderatorship was made *before* the issue of
RFD (which was never disputed by the current moderator), and
the same offer was *renewed* throughout the discussion period.
The merits of a given RFD should be decided only by the potential
readerts through a UseNet vote. The role of moderator of n.a.n.
group -- in my opinion __ be limited to discussing the purely
technical aspects. In this RFD, to have a panel of moderators
instead of currently single moderator is one of the proposals,
and, as repeatedly asserted by the proponents, the current
moderator had reasonably long open offer to accept a position
on the panel -- and if he wanted, probably, he could also have
selected majority of the panel members. Hence, treating the
proposal as a way of unseating the current moderator is
not based on facts, and is rash
Both the supporters as well as opponents of the srh-reog
proposal must voice resentment to this arbitrary killing
of the proposal -- without seeing the CFV stage. Whether to
vote yes or no should be decided by the readers of srh on
Call for Votes.
Follow-Ups:
