[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Tale and the SRH-reorg (Was: Re: Charter changes?)
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Tale and the SRH-reorg (Was: Re: Charter changes?)
-
From: vivek@noel.cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai)
-
Date: 10 Jul 1996 14:28:05 GMT
-
Distribution: world
-
Newsgroups: news.groups, soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
-
References: <4nd8fs$h2b@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <qum20iysz27.thoron@cyclone.Stanford.EDU> <4r8s22$16rt@bcx01.boco.co.gov> <4r92vf$m37@larry.rice.edu> <ghenDu9s2C.151@netcom.com>
In article <ghenDu9s2C.151@netcom.com>,
vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao) writes:
|> In article <4r92vf$m37@larry.rice.edu>,
|> Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
|> [...] It seems that the only person in
|> >this discussion who doesn't believe that the reorg serves the readers
|> >of SRH well is the moderator, and this reason alone is causing all of
|> >the meta-discussions.
|>
|> My memory tells me that there were others, such as N. Tiwari and
|> myself who did not support the reorganization.
The question is "does the reorg serve the readers well", and not
some issue of personal vendetta. If you'd like to see why all the
personal vendetta claims are nonsense, please take a look at the
rather thorough rebuttals -
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-faq.html
|> Another point that I made at that time relates to ``we are willing to
|> have Ajay Shah as moderator'' ploy. The RFD said that one moderator
Even if you want to continue with this conspiracy theory, please
explain away how Gopal's compromise proposal wouldn't have addressed
this? If you recall, he specifically said in his proposal that
Ajay would be allowed to _hand-pick_ the majority of the moderation
panel. That proposal was never given serious consideration by
most of the opponents of the reorg, although it effectively
answered all of the conspiracy claims.
|> For the benefit of news.group readers, I would like to add that Ajay
|> Shah has appointed an appeals committee to hear appeals against
|> his rejections. Should we not give them time to see how this works
This appeals committee was promised _months_ ago, and it only now
seems to have dawned since the reorg has been brought to the
forefront again. Also curious in timing is the tagging of posts
by content, something that Tale apparently suggested as a way of
killing off the info group, but this suggestion was also ignored
until what, a week ago?
|> before another RFD goes out. [Yes, there must be another RFD. Too much
|> time has gone by since the original RFD for the CFV to proceed.
|> And if the new RFD does not explain why the appeals committee is
|> inadequate, we will know what is going on.]
What the "appeals committee" doesn't address at all is the issue
of what posts _should_ be relevant to SRH. I don't want to see more
of the "hate the Pakis because they hate Hindus" posts, and the
appeals committee does nothing to address this issue.
-Vivek
