[Lnc-business] LNC Member Blogging

[Arvin Vohra]

Whoa, do I agree with Scott? I'd be infinitely more comfortable with open
LNC member blogging than open comments. A quick glance at our fb page will
show how problematic open commenting can be.

-Arvin
On Jul 30, 2014 11:44 AM, "Scott L." <scott73 at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
> I appreciate Mr. Katz’s attempt to permit some form of public commentary
> on our web site.
>
>
> However – this will open up a can of worms that doesn’t need to be opened.
>
>
> If LP members are unhappy with something the National Party does, there
> are many, many places where they can post their discontent (or their
> agreement, if they like something that we did).  Plus – our lp.org e-mail
> addresses are always available on the web site.
>
>
>
> This organization exists to elect Libertarians to public office.  Having a
> “comment” section on our web site will give the media a one-stop shop to
> pick up juicy quotes that they can use to marginalize the Libertarian
> Party.  You all know that having a disclaimer at the bottom of that comment
> page will not dissuade the media from claiming that one isolated comment is
> “indicative” of how some Libertarian Party members feel about X or Y.
>
>
>
> Ladies and gentlemen – please don’t go down this route.  Let IPR and all
> the other libertarian web sites take care of the need for our members to
> have an outlet to publicly express their opinions on internal LP
> governance, or other matters.
>
>
>
>   Scott Lieberman
>
>
>
>
>
> “I would respectfully disagree with the vice chair, for largely the
> reasons Dr. Lieberman mentions. I like the solution oriented approach, but
> I disagree with forcing it on LNC members on the website. Also, the primary
> readers will likely be LP members, not the public at large, but the public
> at large will also read what is written, raising the concerns the Secretary
> raises, plus the difficulty in writing for a split audience.
>
> I would instead propose having open comments on everything on the website.
> Then, if an LNC member chooses to comment, it is clear that it isn't under
> color of office, since anyone can comment, although they can choose to
> include their identity and title if they think it will lend credence.
>
> If an LNC member wishes to post elsewhere under color of office, they are
> free to. Many of us do, and at the regional level, we have more direct
> means of speaking to constituents. If an LNC member wants to post on the
> website officially, or other have an LP branded statement, they can go
> through the APRC.
>
> If we do go this route, though, I would disagree with then specifying what
> people can say. Without open posting, the justification for allowing posts
> without APRC approval is board member status, which out ranks staff and
> most management (we have a combined chair and CEO, hence most.) So either
> we entrust board members in this way, or we don't. Or limit it to some
> subset, say, those who do or may supervise staff directly, ie. Chair and
> Vice Chair.
>
>    Joshua Katz”
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20140730/64bea775/attachment-0002.html>