From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.indian.american
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: SCIA ( Is a new CFV really needed ?)
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:03:14 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <kucei9INNckp@male.EBay.Sun.COM>, duane@thismoment.EBay.Sun.COM (Duane Day) writes:
> 
> Does it strike anyone else here as supremely ironic that Alok now appears
> to promote a several-month delay in real implementation of the newsgroup
> which he or she previously championed so heatedly?  

First I am a he. Next I am not promoting a delay. I am simply pointing
out that it is a violation of guidelines to go through this RFD right now.
You don't want to go through an invalid RFD to create a valid group, do you ?

> What is most important
> here, the propagation of a fully-functional SCIA or the continuation of
> Alok's apparently futile efforts to convince the net at large (or anyone
> in particular) that there was nothing improper about the first SCIA vote?

First, the group is fully-functional with 48 % sites (more than
the sites carrying soc.culture.usa) carrying it. The group was intended for 
USA sites only and this 48% covers the USA sites.

Secondly I am no longer trying to convince that there was nothing
improper about the first SCIA vote. There have been two point of views:
one group and myself consider the vote proper and the other group
considers it improper. Since it is a question of net.spirit and not
the violation in letter, such difference of opinion is natural.

My proposal is to resolve it via a straw poll vote.

Why am I doing it ? Well, I am seeking a mandate on my 'judgement' on
the vote as the proposer/vote-taker.

> Does Alok truly prefer having the first vote declared a *failure* (and 
> thus having SCIA be rmgrouped until mid-July) over having the first vote 
> declared *invalid* (thus clearing the way for this issue to be resolved
> as soon as possible in a new, presumably untainted vote?)
> 

How can you be sure that the first vote will be declared a *failure*,
before a straw poll vote is conducted ?

If the straw poll indicates that the first vote was a failure, I have no
objection in SCIA being rmgrouped. 

However I do not want to see the net guidelines and myself 
being 'violated' just to keep SCIA alive.

Violating net guidelines is like violating the supreme law of the land 
(USENET :-). Giving me as the reason is violating my human rights.
My human rights have been violated on this net and I, Alok Vijayvargia
want justice. Net users are the jury.

> >Guidelines do not say anything about invalidating of any vote.
> 
> >(This is not an option until the guidelines are updated to include this
> >situation and some criterion be set for conducting RFD/CFV in such cases).
> 
> >Until that is done:
> 
> >My proposal is to conduct a straw poll among the net users
> >(news.groups, soc.culture.indian.american and soc.culture.indian)
> >to establish this one way or the other (Passed or Failed).
> 
> >If 2/3 people voting believe that vote 'failed',
> >I will send a message to David Lawrence indicating that the vote
> >'failed' and that a new RFD/CFV will be conducted after June 19.
> 
> This is hilarious!  An analogy:
> 
> "Hmm, this manual doesn't say how to deal with a flood.  It does discuss
> tornadoes and earthquakes, though, so let's take a vote as to whether
> this flood is a tornado or an earthquake."  :-)

Your analogy is mistaken :-)
> 
> (One wonders in passing why the "failed" verdict would require a 2/3
> majority.)
> 

Because it is like overturning a veto. I am vetoeing the new RFD/CFV
as the proposer/vote-taker of the first RFD/CFV which is being questioned.
To overturn my veto, at least 2/3 of the votes should be against my 
position.

Alok