[Lnc-business] Post LNC meeting discussion website issues

Wed Dec 14 15:16:36 EST 2016

With this treasure trove of historical information and background
discussions with enthusiastic volunteers eager to retain our history, I
suggest that the Party retain LPedia but do something with it.  Barring
that, putting it to LSLA is an option and LSLA at one time indicated
willingness.  One way or another we need to decide.  I fear we risk losing
history if LSLA decided to neglect it and then we could wash our hands of
it and lose accountability for this stewardship.

My analysis of the other issues above remains.  The archive option is  not
good and there are better ways to handle.  I believe a historical committee
(and yes I will be proposing one when this things gets talked out - or not
if really good disqualifiers come up) would be the best to advise on this
and work with volunteers and staff to get the content moved to the current
site without "clutter" - until such content is moved, the archive sites
would allow members some way to access.

My solution would keep our promises and use LPedia for the rest.

-- 
*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 Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
wrote:

>
> I'm happy to report that we're off and running, post-meeting.  Wes is
> running with Zocalo.  Meanwhile, I'm trying to merge one of our hosting
> sites with a bunch of "leftovers" on it into cheaper hosting.  I've been
> working on that for the last 24 hours.
>
> There are still some technical decisions to be made, but the priorities at
> the moment are (a) fix the website; (b) clean up and save some money.
>
>
> Also, a decision needs to be made about LPedia.  I have recently learned
> through investigation that LPedia has some technical challenges. Wherever
> it lands, it's going to need some help.  So, is LSLA taking LPedia?  Is the
> LNC retaining it?  What's the timeframe?  The reason I ask, is that we're
> going to have to move LPedia one way or the other.   I personally think it
> would be a good task for LSLA, which would let us standardize on one
> platform for every other website the party will be maintaining (thus making
> maintenance easier).
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
> On 2016-12-14 13:26, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> Committee members, I am back talking about the website and some decisions
> that were made this weekend.  Some of those decisions were good, some were
> at best very incomplete (and at worst misguided).  I believe Motion(s) to
> amend will be the result of these discussions I hope to get going-perhaps
> even a sub-committee to work with the IT Committee (one that might be in
> the realm of the proposed historical/archival committee).  In our very
> time-limited discussions, complicated decisions and discussions cannot be
> adequately done.  I will attempt to organize this email into digestable
> issues.
>
>
>
> *BASIC ISSUES WITH CURRENT WEBSITE*
>
>
>
> This would include bad colour scheme of grey on grey, difficult
> navigation, slow load times, odd information screens that are not
> customizable etc.  We gave Wes the authority to work with Zocolo on that
> which seems to be the right move to get these issues resolved.  I trust Wes
> will give us regular reports.  We also gave Wes the authority and
> discretion to restore the old masthead which stated "Party of Principle"
> (as that was a separate issue as to whether that would be a policy manual
> official logo – it is in fact a trademark – no matter how I feel about
> trademarks – of the Libertarian Party).  I highly encourage Wes to make
> that happen and the LNC can later vote to change if they wish.
>
>
>
> *THE PROPOSED NEW SEPARATE LP ARCHIVE SITE*
>
>
>
> I do not believe this was the right decision or a well-thought-out
> decision with all due respect to my fellow committee members.  It is in
> fact an inadvertent betrayal of the earlier promise to membership that no
> ideological content would be lost.  This solution does not make good on
> that promise.  Words are made in a context, and the context of the
> assurances to members was that content would not be lost *from the LP.org
> website* AND IT IS– shunting it off into another website which may not
> even be cross-searchable (that decision was not made) is in fact losing the
> content, and this should be unacceptable.  I think part of the problem in
> the discussions was a fundamental mis-casting of how websites actually work.
>
>
>
> *Objection:  "We don't want to clutter the new website"*
>
>
>
> First I will add, clutter or not, this was an assurance made to members
> and we can either keep that assurance or not. I was given that assurance as
> a member, and I expect the LNC to keep it. But this is a non-concern that
> seems to be operating under some kind of physical assumption along the
> lines of some analogous idea that the website weighs two pounds now and
> would then weigh twenty pounds or that we would be adding 100 more library
> stacks.  That is not how websites work.  And I think we can get into this
> more in the sub-divisions of my email of the types of content on the two
> older sites which I will call the 2016 site and the 2006 site for clarity.
> But in general, this would be invisible to the user until they needed the
> data.  The issue of "clutter" is a red herring.  At most there might be a
> new submenu called "archives" which is hardly some monumental clutter.
> Users could go there or not.  The ones that go there *want* this
> information.  The rest of the information clearly falls under current
> headings, is relevant, and as presently organized is not cluttered.  It is
> arguably way too compressed.
>
>
>
> *Issue: What would this new Archive site look like?*
>
>
>
> This was not even discussed.  It seemed to me like the LNC thought we
> could just stick it at a new address, flip a switch, and be done.  But that
> isn't an archive, it is a time machine that would freeze a site as it
> looked on the day it was taken down.  For instance on the 2016 site, this
> LNC would remain enshrined forever on a page.  That is not useful.   Ditto
> to the 2006 site.  This brings us to the actual issue: the content that
> needs to be preserved – and that can be broken down into some broad
> categories (with some overlap but not much): ideological content, news
> content, parliamentary institutional content (some of it bylaws-required),
> and historical institutional content.   Each of these categories need to be
> handled deliberately and separately, and it is frankly impossible (I was
> going to say insane) to think a simple solution like flipping a switch to
> an archive site can responsibility do this.  And this also exposes another
> huge flaw:  Will there be TWO archive sites?  A 2016 and 2006 archive site?
> How does this LNC possibly think those two can be merged?  Do you seem how
> quickly unworkable this becomes?  What we passed is simply not do-able and
> if we continue down that path, it will become obvious and the temptation
> will be to throw up our hands and say "oh well we tried" and just let the
> content go away.  I will not go down that path because it isn't inevitable.
>
>
>
> So now on to discuss the types of content...
>
>
>
> *THE CONTENT*
>
>
>
> *Ideological Content*
>
>
>
> This would include staff blog articles, press releases, newsletters, and
> the like.  These items are part of what makes up our current positions –
> there is an unbroken line – and these should be searchable and part of our
> current site.  How that would be done has many open paths, including simply
> putting them where they belong in chronological order.  This can be done by
> trained volunteers. I believe Chuck Moulton volunteered to do some.  This
> would be fulfilling the promise to our members.  As an example (and this
> touches on my earlier archive emails), ALL of the old issues of LP News
> should be on the website.  This does not "clutter" any more than having
> older minutes does, particularly the way we do with "see more" pull downs
> that only list the title year.
>
>
>
> *News Content*
>
>
>
> This is part of our political history and again, these items should just
> be put into the blog section where they originally appeared and can be done
> by trained volunteers.
>
>
>
> *Parliamentary Institutional Content*
>
>
>
> This would include LNC minutes, EC minutes, Convention Minutes, old and
> current Bylaws, and Policy Manual etc.  These need to go where they exist
> presently on the site.  Most of this is required by our Bylaws and is
> already being planned on by staff, but when I say minutes, I mean *ALL
> minutes*, including those from the 2006 site and those that I am
> gathering from members.  We can either put a disclaimer that they are not
> certified or come up with a certification method.  They were historically
> verified.
>
>
>
> *Historical Institutional Content*
>
>
>
> This would include lists of past staff, past candidates, and past
> committees.  This is perfect for LPedia – but of course that requires us
> getting on the ball with LPedia.  Some other content above arguably would
> be better for LPedia.  I would like the IT Committee Chair to give us some
> thoughts here on LPedia.
>
>
>
> *Conclusory Comment*
>
>
>
> I think this analysis has shown that this idea of an archive site is
> unworkable, not keeping our assurances to our members, and unnecessary – a
> combination of our current site and LPedia is the answer.
>
>
>
> *MY PROPOSED SOLUTIONS*
>
>
>
> This ties right in to the Historical/Archive Committee I have been hinting
> out.  I believe these decisions and plans can be done by such a committee
> working with staff and the IT Committee and that the Chair of the IT
> Committee would automatically be on this almost proposed new Committee
> which would give a recommendation on how to better handle this issue rather
> than the clumsy way done at the LNC meeting.   And then there would be a
> plan going forward for digitizing the rich content found at HQ and in our
> storage unit. And yes, such a committee should have full transparency.
> Nothing here is secret and is the collective heritage of members.
>
>
>
> I solicit thoughts.  I believe we made a rushed grave mistake, and we can
> fix it in an orderly manner that would not take more LNC time but the time
> and loving care of LNC members and voluntary Party members who truly care
> about this issue.  We can't all be passionate about all things.  Let's let
> those who are plan it.
> --
> *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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>

-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161214/967c6c7d/attachment-0005.html>