[Lnc-business] Request for Update on LP.org
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Fri Nov 4 22:18:12 EDT 2016
I wasn't speaking of RONR. I was speaking in general. It was completely
*personally* out of order. Fortunately I am here to protect and represent
the interests of Region 1. They are in great proportion pleased with me.
If you are not, well, okay.
And now our legitimate questions are a distraction? Sorry. Not sorry.
They are legitimate questions.
--
*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 8:09 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:
>
>
> If we're play by RROO on this list then everything posted here before
> motions are made is out of order. Including this conversation. I do not
> recall a motion preceding this discussion.
>
> In my discussion on this topic, I never named anyone on this committee. My
> goal is not to single out anyone on this committee.
>
> I was pointing out that Mr Ludlow is not a member of this committee, nor
> is he directly responsible to this committee. It is my understanding that
> staff is responsible for the roll-out, at this point, and the chair is
> responsible for staff. It's my understanding that Mr Ludlow is working as a
> volunteer, either reporting to staff or directly to Chairman Sarwark. Since
> all of those roll up through the chairman, I would suggest running the
> questions through him, or through whoever he decides to put on point for
> that issue.
>
> Additionally, the email traffic on this topic have served a detrimental
> purpose; they are a distraction, at best, and destructive, at worst. The
> primary volunteer is the victim of a game of 20 questions from multiple
> people. What regular volunteer would actually stick around under those
> circumstances?
>
> Answer: None.
>
>
>
> Ken
> ---
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
> On 2016-11-04 17:34, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> Ken,
>
> I object to your characterization of concern as harassing and believe that
> is completely and utterly out of order. i , for one, believe my questions
> were completely proper, and do not appreciate the mischaracterization. We
> are completely within our authority to ask questions and state our
> positions, and I do not appreciate the attempted shaming. My region
> appreciates my diligence, and that is my only concern.
>
> With that, I am done with this discussion. I am satisfied that my
> concerns which were in the initial email are on the list. I will re-diary
> to follow-up on them at the appropriate time.
>
> And thank you once again Kevin for your generous donation of your skills.
>
>
> --
> *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 12:41 PM, Kevin Ludlow <ludlow at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.zocalodesign.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-candidates/).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> • 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *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>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
*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/20161104/18925540/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list