[Lnc-business] LP.org Situation

[Starchild]

     Thanks for your inquiry James, and Ken for responding (Ken is on the LNC's IT subcommittee). I understand in broad terms the need to figure out the technical fixes first, but it would be good to hear from the IT folks that they are committed to restoring ALL the missing content as soon as possible, unless the LNC agrees it is something that does not to be restored. Otherwise the concern/speculation that the website overhaul was used as an excuse to purge content that some people did not want will be reinforced.

     Will the IT subcommittee be making a formal report detailing what went wrong, and how to avoid similar mistakes in the future? For instance, could the issue that "Zocalo (the site developer) didn't deploy the site on the current infrastructure and doesn't want to support the infrastructure that Kevin Ludlow deployed" have been identified and addressed sooner, i.e. BEFORE the rollout of the new site went into effect, and if so, why didn't this happen?

Love & Liberty,
                   ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                    (415) 625-FREE
                     @StarchildSF


-----Original Message-----

From: Ken Moellman 
Sent: Dec 8, 2016 5:51 PM
To: James Gholston 
Cc: whitney.bilyeu at lp.org, daniel.hayes at lp.org, james.lark at lp.org, trent.somes at lp.org, starchild at lp.org, Sean O'Toole , Wes Benedict 

Subject: Re: LP.org Situation

 
Long story short: We need to make some decisions before we get too wild putting more info back into LP.org.  I'm hoping we get some consensus this weekend on where to go.
 
There are some technical problems with the new site. We've identified them, and we're trying to get those fixed first.  The problem is that Zocalo (the site developer) didn't deploy the site on the current infrastructure and doesn't want to support the infrastructure that Kevin Ludlow deployed. 
 
Staff is encouraging us to switch hosting to something Zocalo can maintain, so that we don't have to hire another 3rd party to maintain the infrastructure of the site (avoid finger-pointing).  If we do move the site, we don't want to have to forklift more stuff out of LP.org (or worse, if it's lost in the move, re-enter it again).  Basically, we need to get the technical stuff fixed first, and once that's done, there will be a push to get a lot of content put back into the site.
 
The whole situation is a pain.  I wanted to focus on shared services we could provide to state affiliates.  Instead we're bogged down on the website.  But we'll get through it, get the website functional, and move forward from there.  
 
---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
 LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
 LPKY Judicial Committee

 
On 2016-12-08 20:19, James Gholston wrote:


 What is the current status of the missing content on LP.org?
 
 
 James Gholston
 District 30, SLEC