[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Tale and the SRH-reorg (Was: Re: Charter changes?)
In article <qumn313az44.thoron@cyclone.Stanford.EDU>,
Russ Allbery <rra@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> The entire "compromise plan" is his decision,
>
>And this has nothing to do with that. The .info group or the suggestion
>to use keywords wasn't part of any compromise; it was a separate issue
>from changing the moderator and charter of soc.religion.hindu.
I have no idea what you mean by this, since the question is "if Tale
makes a decision, shouldn't he at least inform the people involved?"
>> 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 *told* you. You didn't have to read his mind; all you had to do was
>read his e-mail.
He didn't tell us that it was our responsibility to inform the
moderator of SRH. After all, the entire "compromise" plan was brokered
in secret between Tale and the SRH moderator, so how are we supposed
to know that it's suddenly become our responsibility to convey Tale's
decisions to the SRH moderator?
>> 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.
>
>He explicitly said that the rest of the proposal, excepting the change of
>charter and moderation for soc.religion.hindu, could go forward. What
>more statement about the group from him do you want?
And then he changed it so that by the end of the message, all he was
potentially allowing was the talk group, but even there, he suggested
that getting that passed would be a hard bargain.
>> 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,
>
>The e-mail message from him that you forwarded to me yourself proves that
>this statement is not correct.
No, as much as you'd like to spin doctor it, in context, the message
shows that he definitely changes his mind, and at the end, only the
talk group is mentioned. Given that Tale has blocked the entire
proposal this far, it makes no sense for you to suggest that even
though he expressly mentions only the talk group going forward, that
in reality, he'd be willing to let the other groups go forward.
His message is clear - at the time, he will not allow the info group
to go forward, opting instead for just the talk group.
>The only thing that was stopped was the
>charter and moderation change of soc.religion.hindu.
Wrong - it seems clear that before letting the info group go forward,
he wanted to try the tagging method, but he apparently never bothered
to tell anyone to implement this.
>I think an unmoderated group for discussion of Hinduism is an excellent
>idea for many reasons, not the least of which is that it will give us all
>a good idea of whether there really is the potential traffic available for
>soc.religion.hindu that you claim there is. Why don't you go ahead and
>create it?
What do you think will be its fate if the rest of the proposal is met
with a hostile response from both Tale and the SRH moderator? It's
very coy of you to suggest that we go ahead and create the talk group,
but the same people who are opposing the reorg will undoubtedly do
their best to either oppose that group, or in the event that it does
get created, trash it.
The talk group and info groups are part of a comprehensive plan for
making SRH more usable, and dismantling the plan piece by piece and
then trying to lead the proponents into dead ends seems like a bad
idea.
>I don't think the .info group is needed in the slightest, given the amount
>of traffic on srh currently. But feel free to go forward with it too if
>you want. I only have one NO vote.
Cute, but remember Tale's little debacle on the moderator's list?
Would you like me to publicize the messages from the moderators
showing what the Cabal looks like these days? The behind-the-scenes
attempt to scuttle groups they don't like?
Yeah, Russ, you only have one vote, but what makes us believe that the
vote fraud mentioned on the moderator's list won't be put to use?
>> 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?
>
>I don't know. I also don't know why you're refusing to debate my resons
>for opposing this and demanding that I try to step inside Tale's head and
>argue his reasons.
Look at your earlier statements - you take it upon yourself to step into
Tale's head and argue his reasons:
"No, I'm telling you what Tale was trying to communicate rather than
what you heard."
>I don't know why you're complaining about posts to srh
>on political subjects when those sorts of posts are specifically allowed
>in the charter for the newsgroup. I don't know why, if you want some way
>of quickly finding informative postings about Hinduism, you appear to be
>opposing adding tags to postings on srh.
Note - I have _not_ opposed tagging posts. However, after Tale made
the suggestion (and now we're told that he never told the moderator),
we didn't see any results. It is natural to come to the conclusion
that the suggestion for tags seems to be a stalling technique.
>complained about articles being rejected for reasons you didn't consider
>valid, and he is instituting a review committee to look at the articles he
>rejects. I haven't seen any criticism here of the composition of that
>committee, so I presume they are relatively balanced and unbiased. (Feel
>free to correct me if I'm wrong.)
I would rather debate the role of the committee first rather than get
into the composition of it. Right now, the role of the committee is
rather weak - just appeals for rejections. There is no way to limit
the scope of what's allowed, which is just as important.
>> Pick a week, and the delay ranges from one day to one week.
>
>I would consider up to three days to be perfectly reasonable and
>consistent with other moderated discussion groups. Some delay is the
>price of moderation and always has been. How often does the delay exceed
>that, especially recently?
Ever since this discussion flared up again, the delay has dropped.
The archive of e-mail messages which the moderator has mentioned has
not been available for a long time - the permissions were not set
properly, and I repeatedly mentioned this, but nothing was done about
it.
In any case, the e-mail archive doesn't provide all of the information
necessary to guage anything, since you still need another system to
tell when the articles were posted.
The old archive system (which was suspended after we made the
SRH-Stats web page) provided all of the necessary information to
gather statistics which were actually biased in favor of the moderator
- we only measured the days between posting cycles, not the actual
delay. I don't know of anyone who has collected statistics recently,
and I myself have not done so because
a) the data was unavailable to me despite my repeated posts pointing
this out
b) we already had statistics which were valid, and the moderator kept
on calling them "skewed". When I explained why his objections were
not valid, he still kept at it, so I saw no need to keep wasting my
time gathering new statistics.
-Vivek
Follow-Ups:
