[Lnc-business] website motion

Wed Feb 17 12:40:34 EST 2016

Hi Alicia,

I don't have the spreadsheet handy, but does that mean there is a budget of
$10k or a budget of $20k ($10k + a carryover of $10k)?

If you don't have it either, I can try to dig it up.

Thanks much.
Kevin

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Each of the 2015 and 2016 budget spreadsheets indicated they included $10k
> of carry-over funds for the IT Committee.  See footnote (t) on the detail
> page of those spreadsheets.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Kevin Ludlow <ludlow at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for that response, Mr. Katz.  I hope other members of the body
>> weigh in here.
>>
>> While we're on the topic, it is my understanding that the IT Committee
>> was given a budget of $25,000 at the very first IT committee meeting.  They
>> had one main goal: fix the website.
>>
>> We are now close to two years in and still have nothing to show for it.
>>
>> I wanted to point that out because unless I'm incorrect about that
>> number, we don't even have to rearrange the budget to do it.  We just have
>> spend what was allocated to make it happen.
>>
>> I am happy to use NationBuilder BTW.  It would be even cheaper at this
>> point.  I can easily outsource the design of the website based on specific
>> criteria.  I can get us back visual comps.  We can pick one.  They can beef
>> it up.  NationBuilder can implement it.  For $25,000 I would expect that
>> possibly almost overnight!  ...not really, but in the "Good, fast, cheap -
>> pick two" world, $25,000 gets you a hell of a lot of GOOD and FAST when
>> you're just need to design the site and not develop it.
>>
>> Kevin Ludlow
>> Region 7
>> 512-773-3968
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll address Mr. Ludlow's open question, in the course of doing so, I
>>> think I will address some of Mr. Riemer's points.
>>>
>>> As I said before, I don't know if our website is good or bad, and if
>>> it's bad, I don't know why.  That doesn't matter, though, since I am not in
>>> either of the two groups that would be reliable on this question:  web
>>> developers and the target market.  Mr. Ludlow is in one of those groups, so
>>> I believe him on that.
>>>
>>> I don't need to know what, precisely, is wrong with our website.  No one
>>> elected me here because of my capacity for being impressed by websites.  I
>>> do notice a few things - our home page is covered in text, while
>>> Democrats.org is not, for instance.  I also happen to know that companies
>>> don't just come up with websites that say what they want to say.  They
>>> think carefully about who their messaging is targeting, and then pay people
>>> to come up with sites that will speak to those people.  Do we have a solid
>>> sense of our target market?  If not, I am not sure a web developer can
>>> design something to do what we want.  I think we do, though, and I think we
>>> could communicate our needs to a web developer, who knows how to make a
>>> page accomplish the things we want to accomplish.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what makes one page appeal to one group and a different
>>> page to another.  I see that the home page of Democrats.org displays very
>>> brief "I'm a Democrat because..." statements, and asks users why they are
>>> Democrats (getting customers to tell you how to sell to them seems useful).
>>>
>>>
>>> That seems a pretty apt reason why this board shouldn't be asking
>>> questions like "what's wrong with it?  what would you have it do instead?"
>>>  If a programmer comes to Microsoft's board and wants funding to update
>>> some program, the board doesn't try to second-guess that programmer, using
>>> whatever coding skills they picked up at a weekend class at their local
>>> public library.  They believe the programmer, then decide if the
>>> expenditure to do the update fits into their strategic plans.  They
>>> certainly don't say "we're not going to fund that, but I went to a
>>> programming forum and found this bit of code...stick that into your program
>>> instead and see if that works."  Instead, I'd suggest we do what we were
>>> elected to do, and not things we weren't elected to do.
>>>
>>> Why do it now and not next budget year?  Well, that depends.  If we
>>> believe that a better website would generate more votes, better candidates,
>>> and more elected officials, what's the point of waiting?  If we have some
>>> reason that more members, more donors, and more elected officials now would
>>> be a bad thing, then yes, I agree, we shouldn't improve our largest
>>> marketing presence now.  If not, then I don't see why we'd agree it needs
>>> to be done, then wait.
>>>
>>> Will I support this proposal?  Most likely, but I'll want to know first
>>> what's going on with the IT committee, which took on this project.  I don't
>>> want bids coming in for two different overhauls, and I want to know where
>>> they are in the process.  Certainly, the length of time we've been talking
>>> about this is much longer than Mr. Ludlow tells us the entire project
>>> usually takes, so I'm also curious why it isn't done already (and why we,
>>> the LNC, don't give our committees more power to act on our behalf, rather
>>> than making reports at quarterly meetings on which the LNC may or may not
>>> act).
>>>
>>> So that's where I stand on this; pending seeing the actual motion and
>>> hearing the IT committee report.
>>>
>>> Joshua Katz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Kevin Ludlow <ludlow at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All:
>>>>
>>>> As I mentioned last week when adding to the agenda, I intend to pursue
>>>> $20,000 from the budget and the blessing to spend that money on a 3rd party
>>>> website development company for lp.org.  I have several highly
>>>> qualified companies that I work with.  I've no intention of pursuing my own
>>>> software company as a vendor.
>>>>
>>>> I will formalize the motion before Saturday.
>>>>
>>>> I was hoping to get an idea on who would be willing to support this
>>>> motion.  I would note that this has been talked about for 2 years.  The
>>>> website is horrible.  I am professionally qualified to lead this effort.  I
>>>> am highly confident we can have the whole thing done in 6 weeks time (from
>>>> whenever we get going).
>>>>
>>>> If there is a discussion to be had, please start that discussion here
>>>> so we needn't waste time on the floor answering questions that could easily
>>>> be answered on via email.
>>>>
>>>> I really hope this group is interested in pursuing this.  Please
>>>> consider that we spend over twice as much annually sending printed pieces
>>>> of paper as I am requesting for a the one-time development cost of what
>>>> should be our single most valuable tool for marketing, branding, and
>>>> general outreach.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> Kevin Ludlow
>>>> Region 7 Rep
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ========================================================
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160217/9287703d/attachment-0002.html>