[Lnc-business] Request for Update on LP.org
Kevin Ludlow
ludlow at gmail.com
Fri Nov 4 14:41:01 EDT 2016
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161104/5781060f/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list