[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Status on RFD on reorganization of Soc.Religion.Hindu
Hello,
In an eloquent manner, ghen@netcom.com (Global Hindu Electronic Network)
elucidated:
>Namaskar,
>4. What would be the state of usenet, if every three months a group of
>people, with personal vendetta against the moderator, calls for the
>re-org for that newsgroup and then tries to impose its own terms and condition
>for "compromise"? Considering that the re-org proposal was
>floated within 2-3 months of the formation of this newsgroup, this is
>a very likely scenario.
>
>> Basically, there were no serious objections that i can
>> recall on *technical* grounds of potential traffic or
>> name space issues.
>
>There were serious objections. And they were all pointed out very clearly.
>
>As I have pointed out in many posts (available in the archives), I
>believe that the entire re-organization move was politically motivated,
>as a personal vendatta against me, because I stood up for the word
>"HINDU" during the formation of soc.religion.vaishnava
>
>The fact that the re-org move started within two months of the
>formation of SRH, and right after the formation of srv, based on
>the posts during the srv voting, is in itself conclusive proof that
>the SRH re-org move was based on personal vendetta and petty politics.
This was thoroughly discussed previously, and as someone who has no particular
bias ( my viewpoints generally are closer to that of GHEN, than to that of the
proponents ), it was clear to me that there was NO personal vendetta involved.
Certain e-mailed and posted messages were posted during the RFD, showing that
the reorg proposal started *before* the incidents cited by Ajay.
>However, now, with these problems behind us, I am very pleased to anounce that
>I am forming a Moderation Appeals Committee, consisting of three members
>
>These three are :
>
>Rajan Parrikar
>Dhruba Chakrabarty and
>Nachiketa Tiwari
>
>Raghu Sheshadriji have also been offered a membership in this
>committee, but I am yet to hear from him.
>
>I am working on the implementational details. However, until then,
>if your post is rejected, and if you have any reason to dispute the
>decision, then your post will be forwarded to these three members
>of the Moderation Appeals Committee. If a majority of the members
>agree with you, then my decision is over-ridden. Its that simple
The major problem with this proposal is that SRH suffers from *too many* posts
being approved, not too many posts being rejected. If one Hindu ever thought
about the subject proposed, then that is enough for the post to be accepted.
:-) Furthermore, posts consisting of personal attacks on Hindu leaders have
been accepted, as well as, amazingly enough, requests for negative and
scandalous information about Hindu leaders.
A major aspect of the reorg proposal is to make the newsgroup
soc.religion.hindu, *not* soc.culture.hindu .
>One of the problems pointed out earlier was the "unreliability" of our
>hardware. To address that (however, it was responsible for one delay),
>I was able to secure funding of over $200 per year from Global Hindu Electronic
>Networks for an account on Netcom, the largest shell account provider.
>
>It is ironical that after we moved our operations to netcom, Ntcom began having
>software/hardware problems with newsgroups :-(
Netcom has been having software/hardware problems for five to ten years.
It's always been known as the most unreliable site for anything.
During one incident, for *months*, every e-mail message sent from Netcom was
duplicated *twice*, ie the recipients received a total of 3 identical copies.
Cheers,
Ken <*>
kstuart@mail.telis.org
