[Lnc-business] Request for Update on LP.org

Caryn Ann Harlos carynannharlos at gmail.com
Fri Nov 4 17:34:12 EDT 2016


Ken,

I object to your characterization of concern as harassing and believe that
is completely and utterly out of order.  i , for one, believe my questions
were completely proper, and do not appreciate the mischaracterization. We
are completely within our authority to ask questions and state our
positions, and I do not appreciate the attempted shaming.  My region
appreciates my diligence, and that is my only concern.

With that, I am done with this discussion.  I am satisfied that my concerns
which were in the initial email are on the list.  I will re-diary to
follow-up on them at the appropriate time.

And thank you once again Kevin for your generous donation of your skills.


-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>


On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Kevin Ludlow <ludlow at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ken,
>
> Thank you for intervening.  Getting it from 6 different angles is indeed
> difficult for me to respond to - and time consuming.
>
> I will henceforth stop any correspondence with the larger group and
> communicate only with staff; staff and I have been working well together on
> this project.  I merely wanted to provide a technical update the other day
> as I know staff does not follow some of the more technical aspects to the
> project.  Apologies for it turning into a debate.
>
> -Kevin
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> All,
>>
>> It is my understanding that this body has made motions, passed motions,
>> etc. related to the website.
>>
>> Once that's been done, I believe the chairman becomes the one responsible
>> for commanding staff as to the execution of the motion or action allowed or
>> commanded by this body.  I don't believe that I as an LNC member can
>> command the staff to do things.
>>
>> If this is indeed the case, then I'd like to suggest to Mr. Ludlow that
>> he stop interacting directly with the LNC.  Likewise, I would ask the
>> members of this body who are not the Chair to stop interacting directly
>> with Mr. Ludlow. He's no longer a member of this body.  If the chair is
>> responsible for executing, then Mr. Ludlow should work with the chair.  And
>> then if members of this committee have issues, they can run those through
>> the chair.
>>
>> Neither a volunteer nor an employee is going to keep working in an
>> environment where they have 15 bosses.
>>
>> Please stop harassing/bashing the help,
>> Ken
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2016-11-04 12:58, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>
>> Good morning Kevin,
>>
>> *I am very grateful that you are donating so much technical skill to the
>> Party, thank you abundantly.*
>>
>> I am not going to dog-pile on Starchild's concerns which he laid out very
>> well, but I am not a fan of the tone of your last email, and thus I am not
>> going to continue further as I don't think it productive.  I will briefly
>> say a few things on  my end:
>>
>> 1.  I know a bit more about technical issues than you realize, and have
>> been in the management of targeted websites.  While not the tech guru, I
>> understand the security.
>>
>> 2.  It is the LNC's decision on what reports to be kept secret.  LNC
>> items and work done for LNC items is ultimately the common property of our
>> members if it is encompassed in their right to know.
>>
>> 3.  It is very likely your entire report may be that, and if so, no
>> problem keeping it secret.  It is our job to protect secret assets, and I
>> will do that, but I can't have to pass it to know what's in it.  I refused
>> to do that with the contract, and I will refuse to do that here. It would
>> be an abrogation of my duties.
>>
>> 4.  Sheerly technical details I understand - but in your discussions with
>> me, and an in alluding to your report, it seemed to me that details upon
>> "Party image" and "branding" were part of it, and I have not been opaque
>> about stating that I think that decisions were made that overstepped what
>> the authority of the committee should be.  I do not believe the committee
>> had (or if it believed it did, then there was an issue with the LNC's
>> direction and granting of authority, and motions need to be made to address
>> that) the authority to make such radical changes as removing "Party of
>> Principle" from the masthead.  That borders on ideological decisions which,
>> as a member following those discussions and as a member objecting to those
>> decisions when they were made, I was assured a million times were not being
>> made.  That *"no content was being removed." * To the vast majority of
>> long-time Party members, I believe that removing "Party of Principle" from
>> the masthead IS removing content and it certainly signals something that I
>> do not think the committee had a right to do* - a drastic change in the
>> outward-facing ideological image of the Party. * And I say this because
>> I have found you - in some respects - hostile to our ideological image
>> (calling it "autistic" I believe), and I believe that this opportunity was
>> taken to change it out from under the feet of the body that can
>> legitimately do that - the LNC.
>>
>> In short, my concern is not the technical details.  My concern is the
>> "design" details that contain a certain ideological agenda.   That is the
>> information that I want public.  If that is not part of your report at all,
>>  my concern is lessened.  If your report is simply infrastructure technical
>> details, I am sure the LNC will readily agree that is security and
>> private.  However, I will NOT sign an advance NDA not required by the LNC.
>> Starchild is right, you do not have the authority to request that.  Don't
>> feel insulted, I challenged Chair Sarwark's authority to ask one of me when
>> it comes to the contract, so this is not a slight against you but me
>> vociferously defending my rights as an LNC member on behalf of my region.
>>
>>
>> --
>> *In Liberty,*
>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:41 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin,
>>>
>>> You're welcome for the screenshots. However I'm very disappointed that
>>> you have responded so negatively and rudely to legitimate concerns over the
>>> need for transparency in our operations except when the LNC after careful
>>> consideration responsibly decides otherwise. It was *your* request of
>>> us for secrecy – a request that I in turn consider to have been lacking in
>>> reflection – that prompted my simple request that you let us know what
>>> specific material you think ought to be kept secret. How many pages is this
>>> report of yours, anyway? How difficult or time-consuming would it be to
>>> highlight the passages that you think are sensitive?
>>>
>>> It seems to me that reporting back to the LNC in a responsible manner is
>>> part of the basic task that *you* *requested*  authorization to perform
>>> and agreed to undertake, not some optional extra layer of work that is
>>> being unreasonably expected of you. I highly doubt that you told the
>>> members of the previous LNC who acceded to your request to redo the party's
>>> website that you would *not* report back to them on the work you did
>>> unless they agreed to your demands for complete and utter secrecy! You
>>> yourself write below that, "Technological infrastructure *requires* a
>>> great deal of documentation" [emphasis added]. In other words, by your own
>>> admission, documentation is not some optional part of the project. And it
>>> was the LNC, not staff, that authorized the project and has ultimate
>>> oversight of it, and therefore it is the LNC to whom you should be
>>> reporting.
>>>
>>>
>>>  I am under no obligation whatsoever to send anything to anyone at
>>> anytime.  It's mind-boggling to me that I should spend any of my free time
>>> at all (of which this has taken at least 3-4 hours to compile so far) only
>>> to be dismissed like a schoolchild.  This is usually when I would go into
>>> that longer rant about the key element typically missing from
>>> Libertarianism - basic common goodness and kindness between people.  A
>>> response of "Hey Kevin, that's super awesome you spent time documenting our
>>> server infrastructure.  Finally!! Somebody did it.  This will save somebody
>>> else countless hours in the future.  Thanks for doing that"
>>>
>>>
>>> On a human level, I can understand that you'd like more thanks for the
>>> volunteer work you're doing, although I and I believe others have already
>>> expressed our appreciation for it. We're all human and like to have our
>>> work appreciated. For my part, I think it would have been nice if you'd
>>> said something like,* "Hey Starchild, that's super awesome you spent
>>> time seeking to ensure that our members know what their representatives are
>>> doing and can hold them accountable. Finally!! Somebody did it. This will
>>> save somebody else countless hours in the future of having to research
>>> various info because it was hoarded among a few insiders rather than being
>>> shared. Thanks for doing that."* I don't expect that kind of praise,
>>> but naturally it brightens my day. Do some LP members disagree with me on
>>> how transparent our leadership ought to be, and feel that my work on that
>>> issue or how I've gone about it has been unnecessary or even
>>> counter-productive? No doubt, although evidently not enough of them to
>>> prevent me from twice being elected to this body after making transparency
>>> one of my top if not very top legislative priority. Do some LP members
>>> disagree with you on the need for this website overhaul as you've gone
>>> about it? You know they do, as you've already complained about the negative
>>> feedback you've received from at least one of them!
>>>
>>> I didn't respond to your self-described "rant" in another message
>>> opining that it is unrealistic for the LNC to ask for volunteers to do the
>>> kind of IT work required to maintain the back end of our website, because I
>>> didn't feel like getting into an extended back-and-forth about it at the
>>> time, but in light of what you've written here I will respond, because I
>>> think what you said there is related to your latest remarks. You appear to
>>> be operating on the assumption that because the volunteer work you can
>>> provide has a certain outside market value, that it *therefore also has
>>> more value to the LP as an organization* than the work of other
>>> volunteers which may not as readily translate into outside market value. I
>>> believe this is why you seem to think I owe you abundant gratitude for your
>>> volunteering, whereas it *never even occurred to you* to thank *me* once
>>> for the countless hours I spent during the 2012-2014 term immediately
>>> preceding your own term on the LNC to set up email forwarding during a time
>>> when the LNC discussion list was secret, so that other members would have
>>> access to our leadership discussions.
>>>
>>> That, frankly – and I believe members of the LP's Povertarian Caucus
>>> will back me up on this – is a classist assumption on your part. It is *absolutely
>>> not *unreasonable to ask for volunteers to perform highly skilled IT
>>> work before paying people to do it! We are a party blessed to have many
>>> members and supporters with extensive computer skills, and even if we were
>>> not, such help would still not be an unreasonable thing to add to our wish
>>> list. Are there more people willing to donate $10 to the LP than there are
>>> willing to donate $100,000? Of course there are. Does this mean it's
>>> unreasonable of us to put out requests for 6-figure donations, for those
>>> who might have the means and willingness to respond? Again absolutely not!
>>> Yet that's the attitude you appear to have with regard to certain in-kind
>>> donations. You seem to feel that if someone like yourself is fortunate
>>> enough to have computer skills for which they can charge a lot of money in
>>> the marketplace, that it's somehow insulting or inappropriate of us to ask
>>> them to donate that labor, even if it's just a general call for volunteers
>>> and not a specific request to them – notwithstanding the fact that you
>>> *have* in fact donated your labor, and are not the first computer
>>> professional with valuable skills to volunteer those skills to help the
>>> party (another former LNC member Stewart Flood comes to mind, to name just
>>> one), facts which directly contravene your unwarranted assumption. Highly
>>> paid lawyers have also donated many hours of their time to help the
>>> Libertarian Party before (in reference to the other group of people with a
>>> skill set that you seem to think makes them too privileged to reach out to
>>> as potential volunteers).
>>>
>>>
>>> You'll have to forgive me for stupidly believing that I might be given
>>> the benefit of the doubt about my concerns for the document being extremely
>>> sensitive in its nature.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes Kevin, I readily forgive you for that. And you may be right that
>>> some technical details in your report should not be made public. But
>>> continuing to insist that it's properly your decision to make as a
>>> volunteer, and not the Libertarian National Committee's, is somewhat less
>>> excusable. You refer to being *"...warped into some bizarre black and
>>> white bubble of rules and regulations..." *– excuse me? Unless you're
>>> talking about Caryn's concern that the minutes of LNC meetings need to be
>>> added to the website to bring us into compliance with our Bylaws, which is
>>> a separate (and entirely legitimate!) transparency matter from the one
>>> which you've flown off the handle about here in response to me, no one has
>>> quoted any rules or regulations to you that I've seen. Perhaps we *ought
>>> to have* some explicit rules in place stating that contractors and
>>> volunteers who do web design work for us will provide any needed
>>> documentation on that work to the LNC without holding it hostage to our
>>> meeting additional conditions or demands, but as far as I'm aware we do
>>> not. I made a simple request for some basic human cooperation and respect
>>> for the vital value of transparency in our organization. If that value
>>> matters as little to you as your message below appears to indicate, I am
>>> very sorry to hear it. It's definitely the kind of thing that would make me
>>> think twice before supporting someone for any role in the party that
>>> involves handling information to which I think our members should have
>>> access. Hopefully you've just had a long day, which I can understand, and
>>> will have time to reflect on this and post a more appropriate and
>>> well-considered response later.
>>>
>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>                                      ((( starchild )))
>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>                                   (415) 625-FREE
>>>                                      @StarchildSF
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 3, 2016, at 10:30 PM, Kevin Ludlow wrote:
>>>
>>> Starchild,
>>>
>>> On a positive note, thank you very much for the screenshots.  These are
>>> useful.  I will review them with Deb in the morning and we'll try to run an
>>> emulator for the Android 4.3 (if I can't find someone with that).  If you
>>> happen to discover the OS is a different version than you'd previously
>>> stated, OR if you happen to use some kind of 3rd party browser or whatnot,
>>> please do let me know as it would greatly impact the change as I am sure
>>> you can appreciate.
>>>
>>> On a less positive note, I'm frankly kind of beside myself with your
>>> response to me.  I think sometimes people within the Libertarian Party get
>>> confused when others don't share their enthusiasm for certain things.  But
>>> rarely is there a moment of self-reflection to requests.  No doubt I've
>>> been guilty of the same thing before, but I certainly do my very best NOT
>>> to have this attitude.  I try to use a lot of please and thank yous and
>>> almost never make a demand.  I was no doubt occasionally a pain in the ass
>>> when I served on the LNC, but tried to limit that exclusively to other LNC
>>> members and/or staff.  It was a fight just to get this website started, but
>>> I fought that, won (I suppose), and then saw it through.  So here we are -
>>> lots and lots of effort later and I'm still ticking away.
>>>
>>>  If the data you feel requires secrecy is scattered throughout the
>>>> document, then I would ask you to highlight those portions in red, and
>>>> provide us with specific reasoning for why you think it would be
>>>> undesirable for LP members not on the LNC to have access to that
>>>> information.
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought I had phrased it kindly to Caryn and my apologies if I did
>>> not.  I will NOT do this.  I have already invested a lot of time into
>>> this.  I'm simply NOT going to do additional work because people cannot
>>> respect a simple request.  I compared the contents of this to private
>>> banking information.
>>>
>>> But while your input on what you think our decision should be is welcome
>>>> and indeed encouraged, with all due respect it is not your decision to make.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again, the arrogance in this is astounding.  You wrote to not an hour
>>> ago how none of the technological components I had written about made sense
>>> to you.  I know this is the case of almost all LNC members.  Meanwhile I've
>>> worked in this specific field for my entire adult (and teenage) life.  I
>>> don't think you could possibly explain to me why the contents of such a
>>> document could be sensitive to hackers and the like.  But I can tell you.
>>> And that's why I did.
>>>
>>> But more to the point, I don't owe you or the LNC anything at all.  I've
>>> spent a great deal of time compiling this report in hopes that it would
>>> HELP the LNC, nothing more.  I saw it as a generous gesture especially as
>>> I've noted time and again how we don't document anything.  Technological
>>> infrastructure requires a great deal of documentation.  It's ALL incredibly
>>> sensitive.  I went into great technological depth on purpose in hopes that
>>> others with the appropriate skillset would have a strong starting
>>> position.  And revealing ANY of the document inherently reveals our
>>> security infrastructure.  This is not okay.  I'm baffled that I have to
>>> explain this.  This is not the discussion with John Moore not wanting
>>> certain components of his letter circulated.  This is genuine security
>>> detail.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If the LNC decides to keep information secret, that's a decision for
>>>> the elected members of the LNC to make,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again, this is ostensibly false.  I am under no obligation whatsoever to
>>> send anything to anyone at anytime.  It's mind-boggling to me that I should
>>> spend any of my free time at all (of which this has taken at least 3-4
>>> hours to compile so far) only to be dismissed like a schoolchild.  This is
>>> usually when I would go into that longer rant about the key element
>>> typically missing from Libertarianism - basic common goodness and kindness
>>> between people.  A response of "Hey Kevin, that's super awesome you spent
>>> time documenting our server infrastructure.  Finally!! Somebody did it.
>>> This will save somebody else countless hours in the future.  Thanks for
>>> doing that"
>>>
>>> Instead I'm warped into some bizarre black and white bubble of rules and
>>> regulations where it's impossible to cooperate as a normal human being.
>>>
>>> I mentioned the confidentiality thing only to illustrate the importance
>>> of keeping our technology secret.  I've just spent the past 36 straight
>>> days re-tooling all of this for the benefit of the Libertarian Party.
>>> You'll have to forgive me for stupidly believing that I might be given the
>>> benefit of the doubt about my concerns for the document being extremely
>>> sensitive in its nature.  I even explained that the **only** reason an
>>> external person would have an interest in the document would be if they
>>> intended to hack our system.  Beyond that it's just neat to know since none
>>> of it can just be changed at someone's request.  A hacker would know
>>> exactly what tools we were using and so exactly what tools to use to start
>>> their hack.  Again, the fact that I have to explain this...
>>>
>>> I'm simply not interested in providing anybody that convenience after
>>> I've just volunteered my time to set it up.  I cannot imagine that you'd
>>> volunteer your time to fix it should something happen.
>>>
>>>
>>>> You are not currently an elected representative, which means there is
>>>> no way for LP members to hold you accountable for any decision you might
>>>> make, wisely or otherwise.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Correct.  So the end result is that I will instead hold a simple meeting
>>> on the phone and explain the details of it to internal staff and just skip
>>> the LNC altogether.  If I happen to talk to one or five of them on the
>>> phone independently, perhaps I'll share with them too at their request.
>>> But at this point I'll just NOT provide it.
>>>
>>> I would mention again though that it's simply impossible to even attempt
>>> to do something proactive for this organization at times.  You didn't even
>>> know such a report existed until I mentioned it because I'm obviously under
>>> no obligation to provide one.  So of course there is a set of responses
>>> explaining to me that nothing will be held confidentially, that I should
>>> spend time and mark up what makes it easier for you to dissect, and you'll
>>> still share it how you ultimately see fit because responsibility can fall
>>> on the members, blah blah blah.  It's just fucking rude, man.  Figure it
>>> out yourself if you're inclined.  That's my official response to that.
>>>
>>> I just haven't the patience for this kind of bullshit any more.
>>> Somebody needs to say it.
>>>
>>> Love & Liberty indeed ;)
>>>
>>> ~k
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 3, 2016, at 8:52 PM, Kevin Ludlow wrote:
>>>
>>> Starchild,
>>>
>>> We will have to take a look at what's happening with Android.  If you're
>>> able to take a screen capture of it and send it to me, that would be
>>> useful.  Otherwise we'll do some simulations on the Android 4.3 emulator
>>> and see what happens.
>>>
>>> If it's still doing it then it's definitely a bug.  Because we use a
>>> responsive layout (meaning things operate differently for different
>>> devices) it does appear to be limited.  Still, we'll add it as something to
>>> tackle.
>>>
>>> > I urge you to list separately any issues you really think must be kept
>>> secret, so that we can confidently share the bulk of the information where
>>> I'm sure that is not a concern with our membership
>>>
>>> Unfortunately in this case, though very much by design, the report is
>>> mangled together with details of the server infrastructure spread all over
>>> the place.  Regarding your comments, I will send out an email and get
>>> people to agree to hold it in confidentiality before sending it to anyone.
>>> Anyone who cannot agree to that simply needn't read it.  The contents
>>> within the document are tantamount to sharing bank account information.  I
>>> wouldn't think we'd need to get people to agree NOT to publish such
>>> material, but if that's the case then I will be sure to ask first and only
>>> send the report to those who understand the sensitivity of the contents.
>>>
>>> ~k
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kevin,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your explanation of your revised savings estimate.
>>>> Although the technical details on that don't mean much to me, the
>>>> information may be useful to some reading this.
>>>>
>>>> After some searching, I found where to clear the cache on my phone and
>>>> did that, as well as deleting the browser history (the browser I'm using is
>>>> MetroWEB, if that matters), but upon loading the LP.org page afterward
>>>> it did not seem to make any difference – the text boxes under the "Latest
>>>> News" and "Libertarians in the News" headings still appear as very narrow
>>>> columns displayed side by side so that only a couple letters of text appear
>>>> on each line, rendering them effectively illegible. Please let me know if
>>>> you have any other ideas about tests or adjustments you'd like me to try.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding your promised report, I urge you to list separately any
>>>> issues you really think must be kept secret, so that we can confidently
>>>> share the bulk of the information where I'm sure that is not a concern with
>>>> our membership (in another message you wrote, "Once I finish the report I
>>>> will gladly share it provided that the LNC DOES agree to keep it
>>>> confidential"). We need to minimize the amount of secrecy in our
>>>> operations, and if the LNC does opt to maintain secrecy on something in a
>>>> particular case, that should be as a result of a vote of the body, not a
>>>> decision that is imposed on us by volunteers or contractors.
>>>>
>>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>>                                     ((( starchild )))
>>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>>                                   (415) 625-FREE
>>>>                                     @StarchildSF
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 3, 2016, at 6:20 PM, Kevin Ludlow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Starchild,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your response.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Black humor aside, I regret to say that even the problem with the home
>>>>> page that I identified as a high priority issue with the new website in the
>>>>> list of problems I was able to find immediately after the rollout appears
>>>>> to remain uncorrected. I just pulled up LP.org on my phone again
>>>>> (Android, version 4.3 if it matters) and am still seeing the same issue
>>>>> (see boldfaced item in recopied Oct. 25 message at bottom of this email).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was a bug whereby the boxes were displaying across the entire
>>>> page.  This resulted in someone internally attempting to tweak the CSS.  We
>>>> code was updated sometime last week and distributed across our servers in
>>>> the server pool.  I don't know if perhaps your phone is caching the old
>>>> version, though it shouldn't be.  I will say that it fixed it on my iPhone
>>>> and we've indeed tested it with other Androids without seeing that.  I
>>>> don't know how to clear your cache on the phone, but would you mind trying
>>>> that if you know how?
>>>>
>>>> I'd also note that there is a difference between bugs and things that
>>>> people want.  For example, it may be desired to write "Party of Principle"
>>>> (or whatnot) on the website, but its exclusion is certainly not a bug.  I
>>>> just want to be clear about that as it does make it difficult to
>>>> communicate when people are telling me there are bugs and then it's a
>>>> preference.  The visual aspect from your phone IS a bug, though as noted,
>>>> it should be resolved.  Incidentally, and somewhat to my surprise, the
>>>> Android Browser has accounted for a mere 0.29% of ALL of our traffic since
>>>> we launched.  Not that it doesn't count, but in terms of prioritization, if
>>>> it turns out to be a bug and not a caching issue, I hope you can
>>>> immediately understand why it would have less priority.  This is simply the
>>>> nature of organizing development cycles.  It's very utilitarian, I suppose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>   If the revised time estimate below from Wes is correct, and getting
>>>>> most of the bugs out is going to be a matter of weeks
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, this is where the language comes in.  The wide boxes you
>>>> mentioned was the only bug we were aware of and fixed it.  95% of the work
>>>> I've been doing on the site has to do with fixing the infrastructure.  All
>>>> of this is entirely invisible to you and is for disaster-recovery, basic
>>>> backups, availability of servers, and etc.  The fact that content may not
>>>> have been copied over yet is not a bug.  I mention it only because THAT is
>>>> what is taking time for staff to catch up on and I know they've been
>>>> working very hard on it among other things.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  and that his advice ought to have been heeded. Surely we could have
>>>>> upped the promotion of our presidential candidate by adding some additional
>>>>> images and stories to the home page before the election without overhauling
>>>>> the entire site?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, I respectfully disagree with the sentiment.  It's a matter of
>>>> opinion no doubt, but we differ here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On a more positive note (I think), I see that Kevin writes, "Our
>>>>> infrastructure has been spread over 6 different services (we require just
>>>>> 1) and on my current estimate has been costing us over $10,000 / year in
>>>>> unnecessary expenses." That's up from his Oct. 25 estimate of around $6000
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes.  Again, this is still an estimate, but there are reasons for the
>>>> adjustment.  For one, there were a few other services we are running that I
>>>> was not aware of that can all be condensed into our new AWS
>>>> infrastructure.  None of these are huge MRCs, but they do add up over 12
>>>> months.  The bigger thing, and something you'll have detailed in my report,
>>>> has to do with AWS billing servers hourly instead of daily or monthly.
>>>>
>>>> We are currently running 5 servers in AWS.  The DEV server will be
>>>> shutdown automatically unless it needs to be used.  The EXT server (for
>>>> lpedia and such) must remain up 100% of the time.  There are three PROD
>>>> servers running in a pool that serve lp.org.  Two of these three will
>>>> be shutdown each night from around 12am EST until about 7am EST.  We can
>>>> get more specific in time, but that's my estimate for now.  Instead of
>>>> being billed 72 hours per day for our PROD machines, we will be billed 58
>>>> hours per day.  This is something we cannot do on Rackspace.
>>>>
>>>> Cutting out Rackspace, Softlayer, GoDaddy, and Network Solutions paired
>>>> with shutting down our servers during low-traffic hours of operation is
>>>> where the new estimate comes from.  Admittedly it will take some time to
>>>> get all of that accomplished.  I have noted that as I am not being paid, I
>>>> will not be keeping up the hours that I have been.  It's entirely
>>>> unreasonable.  Still, in time we will have all of these services condensed
>>>> and should save roughly what I am estimating.  It will be significant
>>>> either way.
>>>>
>>>> ~k
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 3, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Wes Benedict wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The website has come a long way, but we have a lot of work yet to do
>>>>> on it. I have personally instructed various staff members to focus on
>>>>> certain things in front of others. While getting bylaws up and new LNC
>>>>> photos is a priority, it may still be a while before we get those up.
>>>>> Again, I have told staff there are higher priorities in the short run.
>>>>>
>>>>> things that have displayed poorly on the home page are a higher
>>>>> priority for now. For example, below is taken from an email I sent to staff
>>>>> on some things we had to do for the home page.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <jhdombdmkmemceac.png>
>>>>>
>>>>> If I inaccurately promised some things in a few days, I revise that
>>>>> estimate to a few weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are making progress. But again, especially while we were having
>>>>> some issues with files and images appearing and then disappearing, I have
>>>>> told staff to focus on certain other things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>>>>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>>>>> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314(202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.orgfacebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>>>>> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/3/2016 6:05 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello, I am following up on the several things I was assured would be
>>>>> resolved shortly (likely a few days) that remain unresolved.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, the minutes archives is not yet restored.  These are required
>>>>> by the Bylaws, and I must object once again that we have a
>>>>> non-Bylaws-complaint page up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, the LNC members photos have partially disappeared.  I have
>>>>> been getting a ton of publicity for the LPCO in CO and when the news there
>>>>> is looking up my credentials, they see an LP.org LNC page that is
>>>>> incomplete.l
>>>>>
>>>>> I waited well past the few days discussed to followup.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes the election is coming up but our Bylaws are our Bylaws and having
>>>>> an incomplete page looks bad when people are looking us up.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 25, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Starchild wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yesterday, I'm told, the launch of the new and improved LP.org website
>>>>> took place. And on the whole, at a quick look, I'd say it *is* an
>>>>> improvement. Both appearance-wise and organizationally, I like the new
>>>>> site. I wouldn't call the difference earth-shattering, but my initial
>>>>> impression is generally positive.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are however a number of issues that have come to my attention
>>>>> which could use fixing, some more serious than others:
>>>>>
>>>>> *• While the site looks good on the web, it looks terrible on my
>>>>> phone! The "Latest News" boxes show up as long, narrow, unreadable columns
>>>>> of type with a couple letters on each line. Considering how many people
>>>>> access websites on mobile devices, fixing this should be a high priority.*
>>>>>
>>>>> • I don't see either the "Party of Principle" or "Minimum Government,
>>>>> Maximum Freedom" slogans shown anywhere (a search for key terms doesn't
>>>>> turn them up). Nor do I see the Nolan Chart except buried in a link. Each
>>>>> of these ought to be listed prominently, imho. The brief introduction
>>>>> statement when you click on "Libertarian Party" at the top of the main page
>>>>> is rather weak ("The Libertarian Party (LP) is your representative in
>>>>> American politics. We are the only political organization which respects
>>>>> you as a  unique and responsible individual.")
>>>>>
>>>>> • The more detailed description of the party has a conservative
>>>>> leaning. Under "The Libertarian Option" (at http://libparty.zocalodesi
>>>>> gn.com/about/ , a URL that like that of many pages should also be
>>>>> fixed so that it doesn't include the web design company's website), it
>>>>> reads:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider voting Libertarian or joining the Libertarian Party because...
>>>>>
>>>>>    - We seek to substantially reduce the size and intrusiveness of
>>>>>    government and cut and eliminate taxes at every opportunity.
>>>>>    - We believe that peaceful, honest people should be able to offer
>>>>>    their goods and services to willing consumers without inappropriate
>>>>>    interference from government.
>>>>>    - We believe that peaceful, honest people should decide for
>>>>>    themselves how to live their lives, without fear of criminal or civil
>>>>>    penalties.
>>>>>    - We believe that government's only responsibility, if any, should
>>>>>    be protecting people from force and fraud.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first two points above appeal more to conservatives or people on
>>>>> the right (economic freedoms), while the second two points are more neutral
>>>>> in terms of left/right appeal. There is no balancing appeal to people on
>>>>> the left by explicitly mentioning things like a non-interventionist foreign
>>>>> policy or civil liberties such as ending Prohibition and reining in police
>>>>> abuse.
>>>>>
>>>>> • The URL for the candidate page has changed (hat tip to Thomas
>>>>> Knapp), and entering the former URL (http://www.lp.org/2016-libert
>>>>> arian-party-candidates) apparently now results in a page error rather
>>>>> than connecting people to the new page (https://www.lp.org/2016-candi
>>>>> dates/).
>>>>>
>>>>> • If the information about how to subscribe to the LNC email list as a
>>>>> non-LNC member got ported over, I cannot find it. I would suggest listing
>>>>> this both on the LNC leadership page, and on the LNC meeting archives page.
>>>>>
>>>>> • The LNC page only lists email addresses. Previously at least a
>>>>> couple LNC members' listings included phone number and/or other info such
>>>>> as Twitter address, but now those listings are gone and only email
>>>>> addresses are listed. I would personally like my phone number and Twitter
>>>>> handle listed, and encourage my colleagues to request their phone numbers
>>>>> likewise be listed, so that our members can readily reach us directly as
>>>>> well as in writing.
>>>>>
>>>>> • Where email addresses are listed on the website (for candidates, LNC
>>>>> members, staff, college chapter reps., etc.), they are spelled out. That's
>>>>> unfortunately asking to get us spammed by web-crawling bots that harvest
>>>>> email addresses. I recommend changing this so that addresses are listed in
>>>>> a less literal format such as Nick.Sarwark[at]LP.org
>>>>>
>>>>> • The page https://www.lp.org/_2016/ mentions Johnson and Weld being
>>>>> our presidential and VP candidates, but the photo next to the text is
>>>>> *not* a photo of Johnson and Weld, but of Johnson and a woman I'm
>>>>> guessing is his girlfriend (which is fine, but should be labeled as such so
>>>>> as not to give visitors the impression that the images reflect the text).
>>>>>
>>>>> • Our bylaws are referred to in the info at the bottom of each page as
>>>>> "LNC Bylaws" rather than "Libertarian Party Bylaws"
>>>>>
>>>>> • A number of people (staff, LNC members) are missing photos. To whom
>>>>> can we send photos of these individuals, if we have them, as well as our
>>>>> contact info updates for the LNC page?
>>>>>
>>>>> I realize the site has just been updated; hopefully some of the above
>>>>> issues are being addressed even as I type this message. And on the bright
>>>>> side, the new "candidate pledges" section listing candidates who've signed
>>>>> each pledge is a nice addition, along with the listing by name and state of
>>>>> life members, candidates, and elected officials, not to mention the
>>>>> attractive photos from the convention scattered throughout the site. I like
>>>>> that the membership and donation forms are single-page, and that the FAQ
>>>>> page addresses arguments against participating in the system at all. And I
>>>>> love the "Help Us Grow" page (http://libparty.zocalodesign.
>>>>> com/how-to-help/) and the addition of a "worldwide" link in addition
>>>>> to the state affiliates and campus organizations! But I would suggest that
>>>>> link directly to a list of the libertarian parties around the world, with
>>>>> that page then containing a link to and information about the International
>>>>> Alliance of Libertarian Parties. Right now it immediately leads offsite to
>>>>> the IALP page, which is a little confusing.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's my feedback at this time. If staff would acknowledge receipt of
>>>>> this message and keep us appraised of the progress in addressing the
>>>>> above-mentioned issues, that would be great.
>>>>>
>>>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>>>                                   ((( starchild )))
>>>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>>>                                (415) 625-FREE
>>>>>                                  @StarchildSF
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ========================================================
>>>> Kevin Ludlow
>>>> 512-773-3968
>>>> http://www.kevinludlow.com
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ========================================================
>>> Kevin Ludlow
>>> 512-773-3968
>>> http://www.kevinludlow.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ========================================================
>>> Kevin Ludlow
>>> 512-773-3968
>>> http://www.kevinludlow.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *In Liberty,*
>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ========================================================
> Kevin Ludlow
> 512-773-3968
> http://www.kevinludlow.com
>
>


-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161104/a8f6c384/attachment.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list