[Lnc-business] Request for Update on LP.org
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Fri Nov 4 12:58:31 EDT 2016
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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161104/cb51adfc/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list