Re: Nature of Telusa
C. Kambhampati (shskambh@reading.ac.uk)
Tue, 22 Apr 1997 13:08:26 +0100 (BST)
I have not seen Bapa rao's or PALANA's post and the earlier versions of
Savithri Machiraju's posts - there is this black hole along with a
variable time-delay on the propagation of posts/articles etc. However,
reading a few of the posts (Savithri Machiraju's and others) a few points
come to mind (Others might have also alluded to it - I am not sure)
(1) TELUSA is a priviate mailing list.
(2) TELUSA didnot have a gate-way to SCIT initially (but this was added
later on)
(3) TELUSA cannot take over any public forum like SCIT since TELUSA is a
strictly private entity. And as such cannot be a replacement for SCIT
- I am surprised that the exact opposite could be infered from Bapa
Rao's and PALANA's posts (they have been around for ages now and
surely realise this - Unless words are being put intheir mouths)
(4) Cross-posts do occur (because of (2)) and they
are pretty minimal (and good for the souls of the masses! 8-() ).
(5) Because of (1) everything else doesnot matter.
(6) Repeat (5).
-Regards
Chandrasekhar
On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Savithri Machiraju wrote:
> Since Sreenivas garu referred to the "black hole" to which posts on
> Friday and Saturday disappeared, I conclude that that's where my reply
on
> Friday also went, where I responded to Palana garu and Bapa Rao garu.
> Unfortunately I did not save that reply (now I know better!) so will try
> again.
>
> First, I want to thank Palana garu and Bapa Rao garu for responding. I
> am sorry that you were upset, and I am also glad that you expressed your
> displeasure immediately, rather than trying to suppress your feelings.
> Feelings that are suppressed (even from "good intentions" such as not
> wanting to cause a fuss) tend to fester and become more and more intense
> the longer they go unexpressed. This, as I said in my disappeared
> posting, is my failing. I do not in general like to speak (literally or
> metaphorically, through posting) when I am irritated about something, as
> I prefer to wait and see whether the feeling of irritation is transient
> or of a more lasting nature. This is what I was doing with this issue
> also. Now while this practice has the advantage of preventing hasty and
> unnecessary exchanges, it has the disadvantage that, if the original
> cause of the annoyance goes unaddressed or even increases over time, the
> final expression may be stronger than an initial response. This issue
> (about the nature of Telusa) has been on my mind for many months now,
> without any abatement of my reaction. Hence I decided to speak out.
>
> The main points I got out of the previous two responses were, from Palana
> garu, "What's wrong with cross-posting to SCIT?" and from Bapa Rao garu,
> that "Not everyone has Usenet access (to get SCIT)". So the gist of both
> these responses is that Telusa is essentially SCIT for those without
> Usenet access. That's fine. That's what I wanted clarified.
>
> Two questions out of curiosity, though. Until very recently (as recently
> as the moderation discussion on SCIT) there was an electonic digest
> version of SCIT for those without Usenet access (this was the one where,
> to help you remember, they decided to ban anonymous posts). What happened
> to this? Did this now go defunct? And has Telusa officially become the
> replacement? (Never having been a subscriber to this, I don't know the
> answers). And if Telusa has now become its replacement, isn't this a
> different purpose than the avowed one when Telusa was started? This is
> the reason for my confusion.
>
> To get to some particulars of Bapa Rao garu's reply, I am not accusing
> anyone on this list of any untoward or unethical behavior. The words
> "collusion and conspiracy" referred to allegations by others, and
> probably should have been in quotes to prevent any confusion. I am
> *definitely* not saying any vote-rigging or anything of a similar nature
> went on; if it came across as though as I did, I apologize.
>
> The point is, there is a difference between someone saying: "H'mm, the
> people I need to talk to are all conveniently assembled here, so let me
> take the opportunity to discuss some other issues, even though they have
> nothing to do with the purpose for which we have assembled"; and: "OK,
> now that we're all here out of observation, let's get down to our real
> business, which is the improvement of SCIT". I have been assuming (or
> giving the benefit of doubt) all along, that it was the former situation
> that we had here; and that being so, these digressions (as I viewed them)
> on SCIT matters would stop once that business was taken care of, and we
> would revert back to "the regularly scheduled programming." Only we
> never have reverted, and what to me were digressions became the bulk of
> the posts. By digressions I do not just mean discussion on the structure
> of SCIT, but posts that are germane to SCIT but not to a literature list.
>
> Now, if a group of people, however large or small, decided that SCIT has
> changed in a way that they don't like, and they decide to form a mailing
> list to discuss essentially the same things, but limited to an approved
> membership list, there is nothing wrong with that. If they start a list
> for some other specific purpose, and then decide to expand the charter
> of that list to other topics, there is nothing wrong with that, either.
> But if they start a list with a specific stated purpose, and the
> discussions then veer toward a whole host of topics which are not within
> that stated purpose, then I don't see why they should be surprised when
> someone raises the question of what the nature of that list is now.
>
> There is, for example, a writing newsgroup on Usenet. Over the past two
> or three years, a lot of new people started posting there, completely
> changing the nature of the group. Many of the old-timers felt that the
> group was no longer focussed on writing, but was spending too much time
> on extraneous issues. The new members replied that the majority of the
> group *as it was now constituted* had no objection to the present topics,
> so there was no reason to "get back on focus." Some of the old members
> then started a mailing list which was more specifically focussed on
> writing. Clearly there is much overlap between the list and the
> newsgroup. But the the list has never felt the need to post its contents
> in its entirety to the newsgroup. From time to time someone posts either
> bemoaning the lack of writing focus of the newsgroup or asking for a more
> writing-oriented resource. The poster is then directed to the mailing
> list. In fact, the subscription information is part of the FAQ of the
> group. This seems to me to be very similar to what happened here.
>
> Sreenivas garu mentions the Ghantasala list among others, and so did I,
> to point out that the members of those lists don't apparently feel the
> need to post their contents to SCIT (even though they would be
> appropriate, as being part of Telugu culture), so why do the Telusa
> members. Sreenivas garu says it was because when Telusa was formed, most
> of the regular posters to SCIT left, and SCIT suffered as a consequence.
> But it is the nature of Usenet groups to evolve over time. If the Telusa
> members felt sufficiently disenchanted with SCIT to leave, then why are
> they still worrying about it? Palana garu asks what is wrong with cross-
> posting Telusa to SCIT. Well, aside from the fact that it violates the
> spirit, if not the letter, of the new moderation policy (no cross-posts
> from other groups; so Telusa gets off the hook by virtue of being a list,
> and not a group), the answer is contained in Bapa Rao garu's reply. He
> states that Telusa is a mailing list that people can join by invitation
> only. Exactly! This means that it is a _private_ list. (If privacy were
> not an issue, why make it invitation-only?) Is there not a contradiction
> in saying we are holding a private conversation among members, but doing
> so in a public forum? If a child brings a pile of party invitations to a
> classroom and proceeds to hand them out to some, but not all, of the
> children present, we can all see the rudeness involved. Why can we not
> see the analogy to references to "fellow Telusa-ers", etc. on SCIT? Now,
> someone is going to point out that Telusa members are not holding a
> private conversation, because they are quite willing to respond to
> comments on SCIT from non-Telusa members. Yes, and this is where I get
> completely lost. If people want to post their articles to SCIT in order
> to elicit a response from SCIT readers who are not Telusa members, then
> what is the purpose of having a Telusa list? The only viable answer I
> can see is Bapa Rao garu's, that it is for the benefit of those without
> Usenet access. Fine, but that's not what I was told was the purpose of
> Telusa. To address Sreenivas garu's comment on this point, if the
> desire is to "improve" SCIT, surely the best way is to stay within it and
> do whatever it takes (posting articles, changing the group's guidelines)
> to make it better?
>
> Both Sreenivas garu and Palana garu raised the question of why I don't
> post. Again I'll have to give a little history here. When Telusa was
> first started, for a few months it was dominated by discussions of a
> highly classical nature. While I enjoy things like samasyA pUraNa very
> much, I am not qualified to participate actively in such things, not
> having the command over the language to do so. When the list moved on to
> other topics where I felt both willing and able to post, it was more or
> less concurrent with all the digressions I have mentioned. I honestly
> did not know where it was appropriate to post any more. I prefer to post
> to a literature list, because I am aware that these matters are not of
> general interest to SCIT. But I did not know if the list really was just
> for literature discussions any more, or if there was another agenda (For
> example, I don't know why the list operators allowed the formation of
> another Usenet newsgroup on Telugu language and literature to go forward,
> without pointing out that there was no need to form such a group, as
> there was a mailing list devoted to just this purpose). As for SCIT, it
> was first going through its various throes, and, when those were over, I
> was caught in the dilemma of the duplication of Telusa. On the one hand,
> I felt that I was duped into joining an action to which I would not have
> agreed had I known about it; on the other hand, I did not want to judge
> anyone hastily, and without giving them a chance to clarify their
> position. Others may not feel so paralyzed by indecision. Very well.
> This is again my personal idiosyncracy or shortcoming, whichever you want
> to call it. Moreover, I had no trouble convincing myself that the
> members of Telusa and SCIT could get along quite well without my pearls
> of wisdom. (It is kind of you to talk about my "eminence", Sreenivas
> garu, but unless you take a very small pond -- say, bathtub size -- I
> can't be considered a big fish).
>
> Sreenivas garu raises an important point about disappointment. I am not
> personally acquainted with the regular posters here (except for briefly
> meeting Veluri Venkateswara Rao garu many years ago at a TANA
> conference), and have had sporadic email contact with only a couple.
> However, like Sreenivas garu, I have developed a great respect for many of
> you from your postings both on SCIT and Telusa. So you can imagine the
> disappointment I felt while observing many of these activities. One can
> only be disappointed in those one respects. There are several regular
> posters to SCIT, for example, who could not disappoint me, because I do
> not have any expectations of them.
>
> Finally, Bapa Rao garu raises the question of the appropriateness of
> this discussion on the mailing list. There were three reasons why I
> thought I could raise this issue here: (1) I thought a discussion on the
> nature and purpose of a mailing list naturally belonged on the list
> itself; (2) I thought this topic was at least as appropriate as other
> topics which were posted to the list; and (3) I thought this a
> discussion that would be better conducted on Telusa than on SCIT.
>
> However, since, from the three responses so far, I have gathered that
> that Telusa is a de facto replica of SCIT for those without Usenet
> access, I have got the answer I was looking for. If I choose to post
> anything, it will be to SCIT, as that seems the appropriate forum. Since
> this has been a long response, in which I hope I have addressed the
> issues raised by the three people who replied to my query, I do not want
> to take up the list's time on this topic any longer. If any one wants to
> pursue the discussion (especially those who feel it is inappropriate to
> the list), I request them to do so via email.
>
> Thank you Palana garu, Bapa Rao garu, and Sreenivas garu for your
> responses.
>
> Savithri Machiraju
>
>