[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Status on RFD on reorganization of soc.religion.hindu
-
Subject: Re: Status on RFD on reorganization of soc.religion.hindu
-
From: shrao@nyx.net (Shrisha Rao)
-
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 96 02:22:46 MDT
-
Apparently-To: ghen@netcom.com
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu, soc.culture.indian, news.groups
-
Organization: Sri Krishna Gururaja Seva Samiti
-
References: <4qsi0h$jh@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4qvbe1$pe2@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <31D45E04.7DB7@ecn.purdue.edu>
In article <31D45E04.7DB7@ecn.purdue.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana wrote:
>
>> Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>> >What is the current status of the RFD?
>
>> The RFD was discussed, as you know for months. then the status was
>> reported for over SIX months. All these days, the moderator of
>> the news.announce.newsgroups had granted the exception to the
>> general rule that RFD of over 60 days cannot go to the CFV stage.
>
>> 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
>
>Cannot the moderator of nan be asked to give explanations? I am slightly wary
>of making comments against him before hearing what he has to say. Or is he not
>required to give any explanations?
The whole problem at present is that he has apparently not required
himself to give any explanations.
>> If the proposal fails on a vote, it is a different matter.
>> Basically, there were no serious objections that i can
>> recall on *technical* grounds of potential traffic or
>> name space issues.
>
>I beg to differ! I clearly cited reasons against both the talk group and the
>unmoderated talk group. These issues were never addressed, only other minor
>points were even addressed.
>
>> Given historical background, the allegation that the proposal
>> is for unseating the current moderator is false and far fetched.
>> For, the offer of moderatorship was made *before* the issue of
>> RFD (which was never disputed by the current moderator), and
>> the same offer was *renewed* throughout the discussion period.
>
>While some of the proponents of the RFD may be sincere, I doubt if that's the
>case with everyone. For eg., Shrisha has come through in all his posts (I have
>seen) as quite sincere. The only flaw he has seems to be that he is a dvaitin
>:-). However, I distinctly remember some reposts of the threats issued to Ajay
>by one proponent. I am not willing to get again into this discussion. It's
>been discussed to death before.
Thanks. Unfortunately, in one stroke you've alienated everyone who
might have believed you -- by accepting that I could be reasonable,
you've alienated those against the reorg, and by saying that my only
fault is that I'm a Dvaitin (which, in many people's eyes is my only
saving grace) you've alienated all those supportive of it.
Oh well...
>> 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
>
>My point is that all proponents of the RFD may not be on a vendetta trip.
>However I can't say this of every one, infact I strongly suspect otherwise.
>My mind is quite made up, unless you can offer some new evidence and arguments
>which were not given previously on srh.
It would be better if you could lay out what objections you have that
you feel have not been attended to; we could then attempt to answer
them. I am personally quite convinced the reorg will not go forward,
because Tale and Co. made a few random and ill-informed decisions, and
they're not covering up for that. However, just for the satisfaction
of the job (karmaNyevAdhikAraste, etc.), I'd like to make sure that we
have answers to all valid objections. It's sad if we have to close
out with someone thinking we didn't get it right.
>> 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.
>
>I'd like to hear the answer of David Lawrence (am I correct?) before making
>any statements about this.
Don't hold your breath, though. We too waited. For months.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>Ramakrishnan.
>--
>Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other
>said, "The wind is moving." The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He
>told them, "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving." - The Gateless Gate
