 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
In article <ghenDwG44r.Go3@netcom.com>, Ahto Jarve <ajarve@fms0.cca.rockwell.com> wrote: [...] >I don't particularly wish to permanently unsubscribe from this group, >but the recent past here has made me consider that option. Whatever >the problems people may have had with SRH in the past, surely the >present state of affairs here is not better than before the reorg >discussion started, and does not benefit anyone, be they hindu, >vaishnava, or whatever else. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken. It's a fair question, and one I'd like to address. The reorg was officially proposed sometime late last year. At that time, it went through a formal RFD phase, and since then, it's been in limbo. However, let's look at what the reorg proposed, and let's look at what's currently going on. - the reorg proposed that moderation of SRH be handled by a team. This was to address several issues, including consistency and response time. The moderation panel was proposed, and was open for discussion. The whole proposal was open for a vote. Since that time, we've seen a "moderation appeals committee," which I assume is an attempt to make moderation more consistent, but it's a _reactive_ rather than a proactive attempt. In short, the reorg advocated spelling out what sort of posts were appropriate. Does that seem so unreasonable? Now, about the committee idea, even the current moderator of SRH apparently told David Lawrence that eventually SRH would become moderated by a committee. So, doesn't it make sense to propose the committee through an open process, allow feedback, and allow a vote? - The response time on SRH used to be less than ideal according to many people. After the reorg proposal, the response time suddenly improved. The reorg proposal sought to solve the response time issue by spreading the work among several people. However, any attempts at quantitatively measuring the response time has been derided as "skewed statistics". Does that make sense to you? I've responded to the charges every time they are made, and now, the latest attack has been that I post too much. However, the same charges that were made 8 months ago were still being made recently, despite the fact that I'd explained why the charges were baseless. So far, I'm the only person who has posted any statistics along with the raw data from which they were gathered, and a process whereby someone could independently verify them. The one time someone else posted claimed statistics, I asked how they were obtained, and I received no answer. - The question about what material belongs on SRH keeps on coming up over and over, and it's not me raising the questions anymore. Recently, we've seen a post about kabbadi (yes, the sport), human rights violations, and the number of Sikhs killed in India. Just today, I saw a note from the moderator asking if matrimonials should be allowed. What seems to be lacking is any sort of framework for answering these questions. After all, on what basis should discussions about the rules of sports be allowed on a religion newsgroup? Finally, ask yourself this - if all of these changes have happened since the reorg, why hasn't there been any attempt by the moderator to openly and honestly discuss the merits of the reorg proposal? After all, he brought the whole discussion to SRH, and since then, has made it a point to repeatedly utter the phrases "petty politics" and "personal vendetta" at the end of almost every post on the subject. Instead, if SRH is going to be changed (and it most definitely _has_ been changed since the reorg proposal was floated), why not discuss the points openly on SRH? There are, of course, a host of other details which get ignored in this discussion - the reorg wasn't a surprise action. There was a pre-RFD phase that took place on news.groups, and the SRH moderator was even sent an early copy of the RFD for his perusal. The reorg proponents have tried repeatedly to aim for compromise proposals. I believe that at least 3 different compromise proposals were tried, and none of them received any consideration from the moderator. I even personally met with personal friends of the moderator in Houston in order to discuss the proposal, but even that proved futile. These matters could be settled in many ways - a vote could be taken, a straw poll could be taken which would pave the way for compromise proposals, or serious discussion could take place about the current direction of SRH. However, look through the archives and look at the recent posts and ask yourself if any of this has been done. Even the simple requests get ignored. The last time the moderator proposed an administrative change on SRH was a clause forcing articles to be in English only. At that time, it was also stated that the fate of that proposal would be based on the consensus of the group. However, the fate of that proposal has never been announced on this group, and that was months ago. Some weeks after the proposal was first made, I asked what the status was, and was told that it was still open. This was after a long period of silence about it, and after many points raised against it. To this day, that is the last I've heard about it - that the status is open. There was no consensus on that proposal, and no attempt at reaching consensus. In the end, even requests asking how "consensus" would be decided were met with non-answers. So, all I ask is that you take a look at the proposal and ask yourself if there's anything unreasonable about it. So far, that simple request has not been answered by the moderator of SRH, and his opposition to the proposal has caused the vote to be blocked. Clearly, if this proposal were so flawed, then many of its main points would not have been implemented in the past few months. However, rather than having everything done in the open as the proposal would have done, the selection of various people, etc., has been done without input from the readership, and has been done entirely in private. -Vivek
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|