[Lnc-business] Request for Update on LP.org
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Sun Nov 6 09:01:35 EST 2016
Ken,
I am asking LNC level questions. Questions are not direction and the past
responses have been list-only. If you don't like my chatter don't read
it. I have made myself clear. It is in the interest of my region and you
have zero authority or place to tell me how to determine that. I further
believe the membership has the right to see these questions.
I will not respond further in this thread or future ones to your control
efforts which - in your parlance - are not productive other than as an
attempt to silence questions.
I will revive my questions after an appropriate time since a time frame was
given.
--
*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
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - 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 Saturday, November 5, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ken.moellman at lpky.org');>> wrote:
>
>
> The entire reason subcommittees exist is to limit the chatter within the
> main group. It makes the body more efficient to assign work and limit
> relevant discussions to those committees. If the entire group is subjected
> to the discussion then there's no reason to have subcommittees at all.
>
> I'm not trying to play 'hall monitor' at all. I'm trying to point out that
> these conversations are not productive, and that you shouldn't be bothering
> a volunteer. Where in the policy manual does the LNC have the ability to
> direct a technical volunteer who is working under the staff? I'm pretty
> sure the Policy Manual puts the responsibility for staff under the Chair,
> not individual members of the LNC.
>
>
> ---
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
> On 2016-11-05 11:38, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> The APRC is responsible for content that does appear. Not decisions to
> omit content though they can offer input if it falls in their delegated
> authority. Overall messaging is the purview of the LNC.
>
> As a committee member I am in my rights to discuss here. You do not have
> to participate.
>
> I will continue to ask these questions. And while *you* may prefer things
> done off list, the *members of Region 1* are largely supportive of being
> able to see the discussions happen here. As in general the rest of rank and
> file Party members.
>
> You are being a bit of a hall patrolman here. I don't accept your terms.
>
> However the questions that started this thread are on hold. The rest will
> be addressed at an appropriate time - perhaps December.
>
>
> --
> *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
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, November 5, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> They may be legitimate questions. In this case, I agree that they are
>> important questions. We need to be sure that the content aligns with the
>> intent of the party, represented by this board. It is my understanding that
>> APRC is responsible for content, and as such i'd recommend the APRC chair
>> contact Chairman Sarwark on such matters.
>>
>> And that's the point i'm trying to make with that particular argument;
>> this is not the proper venue for these questions.
>>
>> I may have genuine interest in something quasi-related to the LP or even
>> the LNC, but I don't post it here; I contact the person directly.
>>
>> Again, I believe that Web content belongs to APRC and as such the
>> original conversation should probably be happening there.
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2016-11-04 22:18, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> 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
>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>> 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
>> 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
> 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/20161106/c8dd21a7/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list