[Lnc-business] LP.org website transition botched (as predicted)

Tue Oct 25 22:22:01 EDT 2016

Excellent points Chuck though I disagree with calling for anyone's head.
Let's figure out what to do.

As a member (I wasn't on the LNC) in those same IPR discussions I was
opposed- vocally.

The removal of archival information such as minutes and the LNC business
list link are alarming.  I assume those are being re-added, but I would
have considered those essential prior to launch.  It is the culture of
transparency not being a prime directive

I need to do a research project in past LNC minutes- now what?

I do not know why we rolled out a buggy website before election.  I have
been getting numerous FB complaints.

*Is the old site merely "turned off" - could this be postponed until after
election and allowing time for the archives to be imported?  If so whoever
has the authority to make that decision should bite the bullet and make
it.  I would make a motion but I do not know if what I would ask is even
possible..*

On Tuesday, October 25, 2016, Chuck Moulton <chuck at moulton.org> wrote:

> LNC members,
>
> Many of the problems I warned about have in fact come to pass.  It is
> Cassandra's Curse: always right but never believed.
>
> See the exchange from IPR quoted below (in the P.S.) for context and
> institutional memory.  I'll quote and discuss some of the highlights here.
>
>
> WARNING #1: TRANSITIONS CAN BE BOTCHED, LEADING TO DOWNTIME — AT THE WORST
> TIME IN THE ELECTION CYCLE FOR SUCH DOWNTIME: THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.
>
> This buggy transition was implemented 13 days before the presidential
> election.  That is the 13th worst day in a 4 year cycle to unveil a new a
> new website.  There were/are 1,448 better days to change to a new website
> in a 4 year cycle.
>
> Whatever MORON decided to switch to a new website today instead of after
> the election should be immediately FIRED.  Do not pass go, do not collect
> $200.  FIRED.  I can't imagine a stupider, more incompetent, strategically
> insane decision than pulling the plug on a working website and trying out a
> new, buggy website immediately before a presidential election.  It is
> INSANE.
>
> I like staff, but if Wes Benedict made this idiotic decision, FIRE HIM
> IMMEDIATELY.
>
> I like much of the LNC, but if Nick Sarwark made this idiotic decision,
> SUSPEND HIM FOR CAUSE IMMEDIATELY (I'll gladly recuse myself as a member of
> the Judicial Committee if he appeals).
>
> If Kevin Ludlow made this idiotic decision, RESCIND THE FEBRUARY 2016
> MOTION GIVING LUDLOW UNILATERAL AUTHORITY OVER THE LP'S MOST IMPORTANT
> ASSET IMMEDIATELY.
>
> Everything we were told about a professional transition that does not
> suffer from the pitfalls I highlighted was a lie.
>
> It takes significantly more time for lp.org pages to load than before.
> The site has been down on & off all day long.  For a while people were
> directed to another domain whenever they went to a LP page:
> libparty.zocalodesign.com.
>
>
> WARNING #2: A LOT OF CONTENT IS REMOVED. LACK OF THAT CONTENT MAKES IT
> MUCH HARDER TO ENERGIZE PROSPECTS; GET DONATIONS, VOLUNTEERS, AND
> CANDIDATES; AND TRAIN LIBERTARIANS ON BEST PRACTICES.
>
> In fact (as predicted), a lot of content has been removed from lp.org.
>
> For example, as chair of the Judicial Committee I wonder what happened to
> the webpage listing bylaws mandated committee members?
>
> Where is the link to the LP Business list?
>
> Where are the LNC minute archives before 2015?
>
> I could go on and on, but I cover this point more broadly in my next
> unheeded warning.
>
> I was repeatedly assured that content would not be removed, except that
> the front page would be made less cluttered.  That was a lie.
>
>
> WARNING #3: BOTH CONTENT REMOVAL AND TRANSITIONS TO A NEW SYSTEM MAY LEAD
> SOME PAGES TO BE REMOVED OR MOVED, BREAKING LINKS TO PARTS OF THE SITE FROM
> ALL AROUND THE INTERNET AND MAKING US LOOK UNPROFESSIONAL WITH 404 ERRORS.
>
> The number of 404 errors is shocking!  Activists have been out there for
> months / years promoting our website by linking to it -- especially during
> this presidential election.  Most of those links are now broken.
>
> Just try clicking on many of these links:
> https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=site%3Alp.or
> g&oq=site%3Alp.org
>
> I've been told the solution is just to report each broken link.  That is
> ridiculous!  It is completely unprofessional for a website transition to be
> reactive instead of proactive -- especially given that broken links
> probably number in the thousands.  We were assured that this would be a
> professional transition, but that was a lie.
>
>
> WARNING #4: A NEW SYSTEM REQUIRES RETRAINING STAFF ON PROCESSES — TIME
> THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DEVOTED TO OTHER THINGS.  EVEN AFTER RETRAINING THERE
> WILL BE A LEARNING CURVE… EXTRA TIME FOR WEBSITE RELATED TASKS THAT COULD
> HAVE BEEN DEVOTED TO OTHER THINGS.
>
> In fact (as predicted), staff has mentioned that the website transition
> has taken staff time that could have been devoted to other matters in this
> busy election season.
>
> Wes Benedict wrote:
> http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2016/006577.html
>
>> I hope we can get those things below implemented early in 2017,
>> however, and get back to LPedia and many other projects, but first
>> we're trying to roll out the new LP.org website.
>>
>
>
> WARNING #5: INTERNAL SCRIPTS THAT CURRENTLY AUTOMATICALLY SHOOT DATA TO
> STATE AFFILIATES SUCH AS THE VOLUNTEER FORM, THE WANT TO BE A CANDIDATE
> FORM, THE INFO FORM, ETC. MAY STOP WORKING, WHICH WOULD DEPRIVE STATES OF A
> VALUABLE SOURCE OF LEADS DURING A TRANSITION PERIOD.
>
> Do these all still work?  I don't know.  I can't currently test this as I
> am not a state chair right now.  I hope someone is testing this stuff.
> Based on all of the other monumental errors highlighted above, I certainly
> don't trust whoever oversaw the website transition to have done this
> testing.
>
>
> You all made a monumental error when you voted on this website.  Please do
> whatever you can to minimize the damage and triage the website that is
> being butchered before your very eyes.  I hope the lost content can be
> restored and the bugs can be fixed ASAP.  Even if everything is fixed
> within the next week though, the timing is still horrendous.
>
> Chuck Moulton
> Life Member & Monthly Pledger, Libertarian Party
>
>
>
> P.S. See below for context on this botched website transition and eerily
> accurate prophesies from people with a clue.
>
> Kevin Ludlow wrote:
> http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2016/004164.html
>
>> 1) Our website is a joke. I mean a real, horrible, laughable, "maybe
>> it's 1996 and the www portion of the internet has just been
>> unleashed" joke. It's got ridiculous internal ads all over it. It's
>> terribly organized. It uses bad images. It has an outdated font, not
>> great font colors, and antiquated font-spacing and sizing. It barely
>> functions on mobile devices. It's full of information it doesn't need
>> to have. It conveys that we're not a serious organization.
>>
>
> Kevin Ludlow wrote:
> http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2016/004283.html
>
>> We want to do all of these things. So I’m asking you, just stop what
>> you’re doing for 30 seconds, reflect what could happen if we
>> actually tried to accomplish this one little task. What is the WORST
>> that could happen? We fail? We’re in a very slightly worse financial
>> position than we already are? But now consider what is the BEST that
>> could happen? Maybe this tailspin of a cash hole we’re in stops.
>> MAYBE people would see that the LNC is doing something external.
>> MAYBE people would have their morale boosted just a little bit and
>> be more inclined to donate. MAYBE we could use it as a way to
>> leverage requesting donations from people.
>>
>
> Chuck Moulton wrote:
> http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-na
> tional-committee-meeting-streaming-now/#comment-1321872
>
>> What’s the worst that can happen? It’s not $20,000 wasted. That is
>> pretty stupid thinking there… accounting rather than economics. The
>> worst that can happen is the site is much worse than before. A lot
>> of content is removed. Lack of that content makes it much harder to
>> energize prospects; get donations, volunteers, and candidates; and
>> train libertarians on best practices. A new system requires
>> retraining staff on processes — time that coupd have been devoted to
>> other things. Even after retraining there will be a learning curve…
>> extra time for website related tasks that could have been devoted to
>> other things. Will conversion of new visitors go up with a new
>> flashy styled website? Maybe, but it could also go down, which is a
>> potential cost. This is especially likely when the focus is on
>> design/style rather than the technical features under the hood. When
>> content is removed it may piss off current donors and activists, who
>> may reduce their donations and activism. Both content removal and
>> transitions to a new system may lead some pages to be removed or
>> moved, breaking links to parts of the site from all around the
>> Internet and making us look unprofessional with 404 errors. New
>> sites often start out with a few bugs and errors which can take a
>> while to track down… the site may look less professional in the
>> interim. Transitions can be botched, leading to downtime — at the
>> worst time in the election cycle for such downtime: the presidential
>> campaign. Internal scripts that currently automatically shoot data to
>> state affiliates such as the volunteer form, the want to be a
>> candidate form, the info form, etc. may stop working, which would
>> deprive states of a valuable source of leads during a transition
>> period. That’s just what I could come up with off the top of my head…
>> there are probably a lot more.
>>
>
> Kevin Ludlow wrote:
> http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-na
> tional-committee-meeting-streaming-now/#comment-1321907
>
>> I’ve launched many large scale sites just in the past year and not a
>> single one of those sites had any of the problems you’re referring
>> to. They DID – when they were on our development and testing servers
>> – but not when they went into production. That’s how web launches
>> are done professionally. A thorough maintenance schedule would also
>> be implemented and the website would be designed for minimal
>> maintainability in the first place. …also in accordance with best
>> practices.
>>
>
> Kevin Ludlow wrote:
> http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-na
> tional-committee-meeting-streaming-now/#comment-1322226
>
>> Furthermore, there is absolutely NO intention to remove Libertarian
>> content from the website. This crowd has an astounding ability to
>> spin half-truths and bake them into something entirely different. I
>> will clarify specifically what is meant by moving them around.
>>
>> The FRONT PAGE of a website (for a non-profit, business, or any
>> other organization) is NOT to leave people with walls of text. It is
>> to create a fast and positive impression and to get a call to
>> action.
>>
>> Having dozens and dozens of options is incredibly poor design,
>> thoroughly proven to be ineffective, and generally an archaic
>> website idea. The current website is not responsive; it does not work
>> well (and not at all in some cases) on mobile and tablet devices.
>>
>
> Chuck Moulton wrote:
> http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-na
> tional-committee-meeting-streaming-now/#comment-1322257
>
>> Great! Somehow in all your emails to the LNC (I read every LNC
>> business list email) you never mentioned anything about the
>> transition process. All you talk about is design/style.
>>
>> If you can manage a transition process well, that’s wonderful. It
>> certainly hasn’t been done in the past. The transition from FoxPro
>> to Raiser’s Edge was a disaster… it resulted in states not receiving
>> working dumps for a year and a lot of records being screwed up
>> (e.g., deceased coming back to life, etc.). During the website
>> transition a decade ago, the LNC meeting minutes archive and the
>> Success 97 and Success 99 seminars were removed.
>>
>> See the IT Committee discussion and report (pp. 15-16, pp. 51-59):
>> https://www.lp.org/archives/lnc20061111.pdf
>>
>> If there will be no transition hiccups, that’s wonderful news. You
>> still didn’t address all the scripts on the website right now and
>> the technical considerations Shane discussed.
>>
>> I’m concerned about giving management of the transition job who only
>> talks about design/style, wants to remove content (supposedly…
>> though I see you have now clarified that), and never mentions a
>> transition plan to minimize problems.
>>
>> It’s great that you’re finally talking about a transition plan! It’s
>> not my fault it’s the first I’ve heard of it though.
>>
>> There are lots of people in the LP (myself included) who have seen
>> transitions mismanaged and are worried of a repeat of those
>> disasters. We’re not saying the sky is going to fall because of you.
>> We’re saying the sky has fallen in the past, we have documented
>> evidence of this, and you don’t seem as on top of the process as we
>> would hope to prevent similar problems. (You also seem to lack the
>> institutional memory to be aware of these past issues.) That’s a
>> matter of you not communicating your transition plan and experience,
>> not a matter of us being overly pessimistic.
>>
>
> Kevin Ludlow wrote:
> http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-na
> tional-committee-meeting-streaming-now/#comment-1322261
>
>> I’m sorry you’ve had people half-ass these efforts in the past. I
>> definitely cannot say I’m surprised. I focus on style because to the
>> external world, style IS the most important thing. This in no way
>> means I neglect the engine, but in 20 years of delivering projects,
>> nearly 100% of clients will respond positively to a broken system
>> that looks amazing over a badass functioning system that looks ugly.
>> It’s just psychology. Again, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t all get
>> done.
>>
>
> http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-na
> tional-committee-meeting-streaming-now/#comment-1322267
>
>> I’ve found libertarians have a different psychology than much of the
>> world. The tech saavy folks will feel talked down to or ignored if
>> you only talk about style, ignoring tech under the hood. The
>> ideological folks will feel defensive if you malign content. I fall
>> in both categories, as do others on this thread.
>>
>> Just something to keep in mind for the future.
>>
>
> Stewart Flood wrote:
> http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-na
> tional-committee-meeting-streaming-now/#comment-1322926
>
>> So they’re creating a new website committee and giving it authority
>> to screw everything up without having to go back to the LNC to get
>> approval on which one of their pals they give the money to?
>>
>
> Chuck Moulton wrote:
> http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-na
> tional-committee-meeting-streaming-now/#comment-1322930
>
>> Yes, they created a new committee with unlimited power over the
>> website. Then they spent the whole time debating an irrelevant
>> $10,000.
>>
>
> Chuck Moulton wrote:
> http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-na
> tional-committee-meeting-streaming-now/#comment-1322938
>
>> I am hugely concerned about giving any one person carte blanche over
>> the website.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161025/edec37ed/attachment-0001.html>