[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Tale and the SRH-reorg (Was: Re: Charter changes?)
-
Subject: Re: Tale and the SRH-reorg (Was: Re: Charter changes?)
-
From: shrao@nyx.net (Shrisha Rao)
-
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 01:52:50 MDT
-
Apparently-To: shrao@nyx.net
-
Expires: 31 August 1996 23:59:59 GMT
-
Keywords: Stevens, Jay
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu, soc.culture.indian, news.groups
-
Organization: \.o_.r-g*-n*-'za_--sh*n\ n. The act or process of organizing or of being organized; also, the condition or manner of being organized.
-
References: <4nd8fs$h2b@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <qum20j8gfvx.fsf@cyclone.Stanford.EDU> <4qmk5o$m5t@nyx10.cs.du.edu> <qum20iysz27.thoron@cyclone.Stanford.EDU> <DuAxoK.CGK@ecf.toronto.edu>
-
Sender: shrao@nyx.net
In article <DuAxoK.CGK@ecf.toronto.edu>, gopal@ecf.toronto.edu (GOPAL
Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana) wrote:
> "moderators own their groups"
> "moderators are mini-dictators"
> "moderators can refuse to agree to a reorg proposal, if they dont
> like first letter of your last name"
> "readers of a moderated group *can NOT* unseat a moderator"
> and finally
> "i agree with the above"
>
> all this coming from a news groups regular!
>
> if moderators are to be *made* such dictators through usenet vote,
> then why is a negative vote on sck -- a proposal for a moderated
> group with all the *potential* to become one-sided propaganda forum
> -- considered wrong?? why the NO voters have been called bigots to
> supress the voice of minority? if usenet admin can not ensure some
> solution to moderator dictatorship, what is wrong in voters deciding
> about it?
Precisely. Couldn't have put it better myself. However, the
"moderators own their groups," etc., notion is contradicted by the
fact that Tale was willing to put Ajay's work to the test and replace
him if necessary. He was willing to reset the UUNet forwarding for
SRH's moderation address (as you know, most newsreaders send postings
to SRH to soc.religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net, and thence to the
moderator) to point to other moderators, *without the reorg* -- that
is, it was not felt necessary to have the reorg at all, but if Tale
were satisfied that Ajay had abused his position, the latter would be
booted, the actual readers of SRH be damned. Thus, the "moderators
own their groups," etc., is inconsistent with previous postures and
positions. Or maybe it is that "moderators own their groups [but at
our pleasure]" -- sort of like vassals' land-holdings being at the
king's pleasure?
In fact, I have decided that given the current vacillating and highly
inconsistent and unsatisfactory policy regarding moderators and
moderated groups, I cannot support any moderated group proposal at
all; it is for this reason that I have joined the list of people who
perennially vote NO on all moderated proposals. I didn't vote NO on
soc.culture.kashmir because I had promised not to, but I've voted
against every moderated group proposal (and change of status to
moderated proposal) in the past month or more.
It may be worth the while of all those in favor of the reorg to
consider doing the same. There is no sense in allowing the tyranny of
"ownership" to bespoil UseNet.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> gopal
