[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Status on RFD on reorganization of Soc.Religion.Hindu

In article <ghenDtz5u4.6JD@netcom.com>,
Global Hindu Electronic Network <ghen@netcom.com> wrote:
>Namaskar,
>
>On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana wrote:
>
>> Suddenly, we hear that the proposal was discussed in some *restricted*
>> mailing list by the moderator of the n.a.n. and without explaining the
>> reasons the proposal was *killed* -- to the best  of my understanding
>> from the  recent posts.
>> 
>> 
>> I strongly feel that this *surreptious* killing of the proposal
>> without discussing it on the open forum like news.groups, and
>> without giving opportunity to the readership or potential 
>> readership of the srh news group to participate in such a
>> discussion  is not a decent action.
>> 
>
>1. The newsgroup Soc.Religion.Hindu with the present moderator and the 
>present charter was created under the exsting usenet rules, it was not imposed
>on the readership of SRH by some unknown entities

I beg to differ.  The newsgroup was *NOT* created in its present form:
it had no moderation policy statement in the CFV (which is quite
amazing, if you think of it), and the moderation policy has been added
completely later, and amended in bits and pieces continually by a
process that has never been clarified.

>2. No newsgroup moderator has been changed/group re-organized, without 
>the consent of the existing moderator.

Conversely, there has never been a case where the moderator refused to
consent to a reorganization.

>3. Many usenet newsgroups, including soc.religion.eastern., 
>soc.religion.christianity, all have a single moderator, and some, e.g., 
>soc.religion.vaishnava has a single moderator, so singling out 
>soc.religion.hindu for having a single modeatrator is unfair.

Which, of course, is a very neat dodge.  Having more moderators is
desirable -- that there are other groups with single moderators
doesn't change that.  And soc.religion.vaishnava has a single
moderator, but it's a program (which is why so much muck gets through
on occasion), and it works faster than any dozen humans put together
would.

>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.

Is it now?  Please read

http://xp2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3c4d72uv$8e5@babbage.ece.uc.edu%3e&server=dnserver.db96q1&CONTEXT=836807680.2504&hitnum=4

(all that on one line)

and other postings in the "SRH reorganization" thread of January --
especially Vidyasankar Sundaresan's excellent analysis, which can be
considered reasonably fair, inasmuch as he's not a proponent, and no
one's even accused him of vendetta or ulterior motives.
(Ramakrishnan, please note than he is an Advaitin :-) )

>> 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.

And answered even more so.  I notice that you never did respond to
that posting (URL given above), where I answered your charges.

>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

It should interest you to know that the only reason for the reorg
being junked is that *I* stood up for the word `Indian' during the
saga of the soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir proposal.  Tale finally
threw away the mask and stated that he was tired of how much work I
had caused for all those involved in newsgroup creation, etc. (he
apparently had no memory of having appreciated my cooperation); he was
clearly reducing it to a one-to-one thing, and because he didn't like
me over SCI.J-K, the reorg wasn't on.  Everything else is just so much
chaff presented for the uninformed.

>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.

Your "conclusive proof" has been debunked so many times, and you've
never quite managed to come up with a reasonable rebuttal of any kind.

>However, I believe that re-hashing this old debate is quite futile.
>
>In my conversations with the moderator of NAN, and others, such as the 
>usenet adviors and the members of the moderators mailing list I told 
>them about the fairness of my moderatorship (a fact that has never been 
>disputed), and I also gave them my original (thought of before the re-org 
>move) plan for making absolutely certain., as far as possible, that the 
>moderation process is fair.

Commendable.  But why didn't you tell the readers of SRH this before
the reorg, or even during?  They come last?

>The implementation of this plan was delayed because of the re-org. 
>move, and also the fact that I have had some hardware related problems.
>
>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

Not quite.  Why is it that initial approvals are not to be done by
them?  Are you against that?  Having more people doing initial
approvals would improve turnaround times for postings.

>I have checked with the other moderators, and I have been told that I
>am well within my rights to form such a committee, with the members that I
>as an elected moderator of SRH choose, and that this does have a precedence.
>
>Our rejection rate is only about 2-3 articles per week at the 
>most, and most of the rejections are never appealed.  But, even if there
>is any appearence of injustice, this process will ensure its 
>removal.

Then again, it is unjust to the readers who may have to tolerate
greater delay than necessary (especially in case of h/w outages such
as you've experienced), and it's also unjust to you since you have to
continually face the prospect of three others watching over your
shoulder all the time, three others who aren't equals, and who do not
have a day-to-day grasp of what the job takes.

>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.

Btw, this issue came up on during the reorg discussion as well -- who
exactly is/are Global Hindu Electronic Networks, and what is their
interest in the SRH newsgroup?  What do they expect in return for
giving you the money?  The GHEN site clearly stated (and continues to
state -- look at http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/) that they
"sponsor" soc.religion.hindu -- and this "sponsorship" came in for
some hostile comment (from the *opponents* of the reorg, let it be
noted) during the discussion.  You denied that there was any
sponsorship, but the wording remains, and now you've accepted their
money and made it firmer.  And no, don't try the old gag of stating
that it's only the archive that is sponsored -- for one thing, that's
meaningless, and secondly, I can read -- it clearly says that the
*newsgroup* is sponsored.  And considering that GHEN evidently
considers you enough of their own to let you use an account in their
name to moderate and post, the question assumes added significance
considering your previous answer.

>It is ironical that after we moved our operations to netcom, Ntcom
>began having software/hardware problems with newsgroups :-( In fact,
>notes from motd on Netcom have been posted on SRH.  Now, as a
>temporary measure, the articles are posted from two sites

Sometimes twice...

>> technical aspects.  In this RFD, to  have a panel of moderators
>> instead of currently single moderator is one of the proposals,
>> and, as repeatedly asserted by the proponents, the current
>> moderator had reasonably long open offer to accept  a position
>> on the panel -- and if  he wanted, probably, he could also have
>> selected majority of the panel members.  Hence, treating the
>> proposal  as a way of unseating the current moderator is
>> not based on  facts, and is rash 
>
>Since soc.religion.vaishnava has a single software moderator, and a 
>single hardware moderator, it is only one moderator who in reality 
>decides what key words are used for acceptance of the posts.  The 
>same is true for all the other newsgroups I have pointed out above.

Now see, again, the comparison with SRV is flawed -- this was pointed
out so many times in the reorg discussion, and you never quite managed
to give a reply.  Besides, the keyword list for SRV is published, and
no, it is not decided solely on the whims of one person.  If you
notice, there have been calls for expanding the list, and these have
been discussed on the group and suitable action has been taken (the
list right now is so large that it hardly keeps anything out).

Anyway, all that is irrelevant -- there is no analogue to the keyword
feature in the SRH setup.

>Since you and the proponents of srh -reorg have decided to single out 
>SRH for this move, the re-org motives can be obviously assigned.

Since you have conveniently decided to stick to the solo moderator
position and ignored all well-reasoned arguments, "the motives can be
obviously assigned."

>> of the proposal -- without seeing the CFV stage. Whether to
>> vote yes or no should be decided by  the readers of srh on
>> Call for Votes. 
>
>Since SRH newsgroups was formed by a vote, I consider this out or ghe
>ordinary request (since no newsgroup in the entire usenet history has
>been subjected to this), as inherently unfair.

Why?  As someone noted, it is not the case that the moderator of a
group has veto rights to all groups in the entire hierarchy; as such,
why is inherently unfair to ask for an *.info group and an unmoderated
group?  Even assuming that your little kingdom is not to be disturbed
at any cost, that still is eminently fair.

>I hope that this is the last positng I have to make on this topic, and
>that we can all use our time more constructively, in propagating Hindu
>dharma on the net.

Indeed.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

>regards,
>
>ajay shah
>ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu
>
>
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mail posts to: ghen@netcom.com : http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/
Follow-Ups:
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.