[Lnc-business] Post LNC meeting discussion website issues

[David Demarest]

Thank you, Ken, for your update and Caryn Ann for her detailed content comments.

 

Keep in mind that the key to a successful website is active user participation in the design. The stated goal of the LP.org website design effort is to produce a product that spreads our message using a high level of functionality that will appeal to the broader audience while meeting the internal requirements of the LNC committee and staff members.

 

Designers are frequently faced with the reticence of users to actively participate in the design process. The result is a design that meets the needs of the designers, not the users. Further, designers that insist on excluding users from the design process will predictably fail, despite their design abilities, to accomplish a website goal as dramatically illustrated by the current deficiencies of LP.org.

 

Given their proven track record, the decision to move LP.org project management under Wes Benedict and Andy Burns is a major step in the right direction. In response to my inquiry about user testing during the Alexandria LNC meeting Sunday, Wes listed three major user groups relevant to user testing. Starchild, in turn, prioritized the three user groups in terms of the relative importance of their user-testing contributions to maximizing the LP.org goal external audience outreach:

 

1.       End users external to the LNC

 

2.       LNC committee members

 

3.       LNC staff members

 

Wes noted that after he and Andy get the designers’ steering wheel pointed in the right direction and fundamental deficiencies ironed out, the next task will be to guarantee that the website is functional for LNC staff data entry. Wes advised me that it will take a few weeks to get their ducks in a row before they are ready to be inundated with LNC member and external user input. After Wes and Andy have their ducks in a row and Ken completes the hosting cost containment due diligence, we LNC members need to jump on the bandwagon with thorough user testing to ensure that we will be able to use the website effectively in support of our LNC activities. I have volunteered my services to Wes for user testing. All indications are that many other LNC members will be available to participate in user testing. 

 

Finally, as Starchild has noted, the most important task in vetting LP.org is to solicit extensive external user testing consistent with the broader audience primary goal of LP.org. I have several qualified LPNE members that have volunteered to be at the disposal of Wes and Andy for external user testing, including Ben Backus and Nick Heesch. I have no doubt that many other LNC affiliates can be counted on to provide as many volunteer user testers as necessary to help Wes, Ken and Andy roll out an improved, robust and successful LP.org website. 

 

Thoughts?

  

Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE

 

~David Pratt Demarest

Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)

Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee

Secretary Pro Tem, LNC Affiliate Support Committee

Board Member and Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus

Cell:      402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

Office: 402-222-7207

 

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Ken Moellman
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 1:57 PM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Cc: lnc-business <lnc-business at lp.org>
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Post LNC meeting discussion website issues

 

 

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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161215/66fd0f83/attachment-0005.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Untitled attachment 00167.txt
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161215/66fd0f83/attachment-0005.txt>