[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Tale and the SRH-reorg (Was: Re: Charter changes?)
In article <qumbuhmi0d7.thoron@cyclone.Stanford.EDU>,
Russ Allbery <rra@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> In other words, Tale told the proponents one thing, and he didn't even
>> bother to inform the moderator in question of his decision?
>
>What decision?
The entire "compromise plan" is his decision, and if he apparently
can't even be bothered to let everyone involved know what he wants,
what are the proponents to do - read his mind?
>He suggested that you look into having articles tagged by
>the moderator of the current group rather than creating a new group and
>said he thought that would be a much better solution. You didn't look
>into it. *shrug* Your loss.
Forgive me for being blunt, but now you're being extremely deceitful.
Recall that Tale didn't answer _any_ mail on this topic at all, so how
the heck were we supposed to determine anything about what he wanted.
>I looked into it later because it occurred to me, and discovered to my
>surprise that you apparently aren't even bothering to communicate with
>current moderator.
You're swatting a proposal aside, and now you're trying to blame the
proponents. Cute. Do you also use the same logic for rape victims?
Face it - the person who stopped communicating in this process is
Tale. Or, perhaps, should we start sending every post on this topic to
both group-advice and the moderator just to do a collective CYA?
>>> Presumably that's why he's now implementing it.
>
>> Perhaps, but the timing of everything is interesting.
>
>Yeah, he started implementing it right after someone suggested it to him.
>Funny, that.
Given that Tale decreed the idea when he killed the info group,
doesn't it seem like _he_ should be the one telling the involved
parties about his decision?
>> Since Tale hasn't returned any of my e-mail, why not settle the matter
>> and ask him if he ever told the SRH moderator about his tagging idea?
>
>I have no idea whether he did or not, and frankly I don't particularly
>care. Why should he have? It was your proposal; you're the one who
>wanted some way of distinguishing between different types of posts. You
The proponents neither floated nor signed on to this "compromise
plan". It was presented to us with no alternative, and now you're
trying to blame _us_ for not being Tale's messengers?
>said "I want to do this" and Tale said "I think it would be better if you
>did it this way." Where in there do you see an obligation on his part to
>go explain all that to the SRH moderator?
He didn't just say that he would prefer to do it a certain way - he
stopped the reorg proposal from moving forward at all, and stopped
answering questions about the alternatives. In other words, he decreed
the course of events.
>> If not, then it looks like Tale was definitely just trying to swat the
>> reorg proposal aside.
>
>Sounds to me like he was giving you advice and you weren't listening.
>Again.
Russ, you've been promoting this lie for a matter of weeks. If we weren't
interested in clarifying the matter, why would we have written to Tale
and group advice asking what he meant, exactly?
>>> Have you talked to them about it? My understanding is that in about
>>> two months they are supposed to begin sharing the full moderation role.
>
>> I didn't broker the "compromise" - Tale did.
>
>At this point, I really could care less who was involved. The current SRH
>moderator posted his entire plan,
Show me where this was posted.
>whether it's a compromise or not and
>regardless of who's idea it was, and it included his future plans and a
>rough time schedule. I'm asking you about that.
Once again, I've never seen this time schedule. Show me.
>> Of course, this was months ago, and this moderation appeals committee
>> didn't even get mentioned until just now, when we started asking about
>> it in public. So here's the question - if the moderation panel is to be
>> expanded, why do it by an iron fist rather than let the readers of the
>> group vote on the issue?
>
>Why does it matter? Seriously? If the problem can be fixed, why are you
>so hung up on which procedure is used to fix it?
Because the current "fix" still leaves a few gapin holes - see the
drug-related posts on SRH now for an example of where the "fix" falls
short. The "compromise plan" and the "moderation appeals committee"
falls very short of what the reorg would have accomplished.
>> Cause and effect - the long gaps once again are killing the traffic.
>
>What's the current delay between submission and posting for SRH?
Pick a week, and the delay ranges from one day to one week.
>>> the traffic is so low that it should be easy for each reader to do the
>>> final screening themselves.
>
>> Then why have a moderated group at all?
>
>Planning ahead, as far as I'm concerned. Right now, given the traffic
>levels, my personal inclination would be to make the moderation extremely
>light (and correspondingly fast).
This would be fine if the moderation were consistent. it's not.
-Vivek
Follow-Ups:
