[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
In article <4smorh$2ja@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ajay Shah <ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana wrote:
>
>> Ajay Shah <ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >How often do you think the newsgroup charters and moderators be put to
>> >vote? Once every three months?
>>
>> be honest: how often do you think we get volunteers to think of
>> an existing news group, prepare a detailed RFD document, face the
>
>Namaskar,
>
>Every time someone wakes up and thinks that they do not like the moderator
>of the newsgroup. Every time they think that the moderator does not
>subscribe to their personal philosophy. Every time moderator accepts a
>post - any post, or rejects a post - any post. Every time they think that
>the moderator should let go the larger good of the readers and the Hindu
>community on the net to pacify their persoal vendetta and petty politics .
The Pre-RFD, RFD and CFV stages take several months of time. and you
know that the present proposal took over 7 months, and we still do not
see a CFV. and, in any case, i do not see any problem if a volunteers
come forward with new ideas to improve and their proposals comes to
vote.that should basically be a problem for usenet admin -- as to
how many times they want to allow votes on group without choking the
setup. as long as a vote is possible under rules, there is no harm
in using the system to improve.
the problem comes when as a moderator of a group you allow RFD debate
to take place on srh -- which actually should take place on news.groups.
this was pointed out *long* time ago, in the early stages of RFD.
>Every time a group of people decide that they want to make the group
>virtually un-readable by posting the same posts, with same contents,
>worded slightly differently, multiple times a day . . .
this again is *not* because of RFD process, but because *you* allowed
the RFD process to take place on srh. the original discussion took
place on news.groups. you only pulled into srh. actually, since it
*has* take place, most people submit multiple copies, one for news.groups
to appear immediately, and to srh separately.
the present discussion (not the RFD debate) would have come to srh
*anyway*, since the present discussion arose because of *your*
refusing to take the vote of readership of srh on the subject.
>Of course, covering it all up with words like for "democracy", "voting" etc.,
>knowing fully well, that the newsgroup was overwhelmingly voted for, with
>the current charter and moderator only 2-3 months before the re-org
>move . . .
umpteenth time i am repeating: srh was voted. the present discussion is
about the proposal to *improve* the present srh. and this is different.
>But be assured, that I for one will stand up for what I believe is a
>principled stand, without regards to pressure, especially from those
>who seek to divide the Hindu community on the basis of mode of worship.
pucca political speech! the simple and straightforward truth is that
you dont want to face a vote.
gopal
Follow-Ups:
