[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:
>Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu> writes:
>> Russ Allbery <rra@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
>
>>> Had you asked the moderator about either of those issues in the
>>> intervening time?  He told me that technical difficulties delayed the
>>> appeals committee and that he had never heard the suggestion that posts
>>> should be tagged by content before but that it sounded like a good
>>> idea.
>
>> 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?  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.

Oh, yes.  Tale always gets to play both ways.  If someone wasn't
convinced his "compromise" was a sham, they certainly should be now.
I don't see how even Arun Malik could disapprove of that.

>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.

What a pity that it surprises you not in the least that Tale's
"compromise" is one where he does not communicate with either of the
parties between whom he is allegedly attempting to effect a
compromise.

>>> 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.

Not at all.  No matter what differences anyone may have with Ajay, it
cannot be denied that his conduct is one of sterling virtue, compared
with Tale's, and that he deserves to be a moderator much more so than
does the latter.  Ajay might be accused of many things, but
double-dealing isn't one of them.  He's consistent and forthright.

>> 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
>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?

Tell me, what exactly is your notion of a compromise?  I was once very
surprised by your (non)notion of natural justice, now I'm very
surprised that you can speak of Tale's alleged compromise when he in
fact didn't do anything straightforward.

>> 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.

Again?  When was the previous time?  And of course, it matters not in
the least that he changed his tune to the proposal's detriment, for
the umpteenth time.  The readers are last and least.

>>> 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, 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.

I'm sure you don't care who's involved, because this is a point where
Tale is, lamentably for the umpteenth time, shown to have erred.  He's
your blind spot, and you must conveniently ignore all evidence of his
wrongdoing.

>> 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?

It matters because (a) it hasn't been show how this is fixes the
problem, and in fact, there are other aspects to the *.info group that
this does not address; and (b) it points to the crassly unethical
nature of the sham "compromise."

>> Cause and effect - the long gaps once again are killing the traffic.
>
>What's the current delay between submission and posting for SRH?

Find that out before making any statements.

>>> 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).

Has it occurred to you that a lot of junk getting in may actually be a
contributing factor in keeping the traffic level low?  That it may
encourage serious posters to go elsewhere, thus resulting in a vicious
cycle of low standard and volume? 

'nuf said.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

>-- 
>Russ Allbery (rra@cs.stanford.edu)      <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.