[Lnc-business] Motion:

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

My copy/paste got mangled:

Thank you Joshua:


==My question is on the relation between 1 and 1a together, and 2.  What,
exactly, is in 2 that is not in 1 or 1a?  To give some examples:  is there
anything not being stored that the makers want to see stored?  ==

There are things not being made available or stored in a meaningful way we
would like to see stored.  For instance, we have all the copies of past
press releases.  What good are they doing in a file cabinet?  So what we
are doing now is storing them (either physically or electronically) but not
preserving them in a meaningful way - meaning to be of use to members.  And
even the ones we have stored electronically (and this is one category, I
could expand this further) have not been done reliably - i.e. the "lost"
data on the websites that might be better suited on an LPedia interface.
And this could happen again.  This would insure a committee actually
provides oversight and responsibility for making sure these things get done
so it doesn't became an LNC discussion that is too remote to other things
we have to discuss in our limited time.  These records represent the
tangible output that members paid money for.

==So far as I know, there is nothing stopping volunteers from going into
the basement and scanning things.  At least, that's the impression I have
from the fact that my colleague from Colorado, a stickler about rules, did
so, with another volunteer member, and there was no suggestion of
impropriety.  What stops us from, without doing anything, having volunteers
do that?==

An organization to direct them in a meaningful way, and there is certainly
something "official" about volunteering for an actual committee and having
that organizational power and oversight.  And volunteers can scan, go off
merrily into their own files, and it isn't preserved for party members at
large - which is something we have already committed to for years with
LPedia, and done it poorly.

==Which brings me to another question - what, exactly, will this committee
decide?  It seems to me that the answer might be nothing, but I'm not sure
on that.==

It will make decisions on things to insure are on LPedia and recommend
destruction of preserved items if needed.  It will decide on best practice
for document preservation and best order of going about the project. It
will also administer LPedia - so that staff will not have to worry about
it.  LPedia hopefully will grow into something that needs some dedicated
management.

==  That is, it looks like it will not be an empowered committee, and will
only make recommendations to the LNC, albeit with special rules of order
that will make it easier for things to pass (but, I suggest, might impact
the vote threshold for this motion, as well as make the Policy Manual a bit
more confusing - it might be good to have this motion amend the Special
Rules of Order section of the Policy Manual as well, and leave the rules of
order parts out of the committee description and scope).  ==

To the second part, I would like to hear your suggestions on that.

==Since it was posted, the scope of those recommendations has been narrowed
somewhat (my understanding of the deleted line about expenditures seems to
have been different from that of several others - I didn't see it giving
the committee unlimited power to commit us to expenditures, but I did see
it as oddly outside the budget process, as others have pointed out - I
might prefer if a budget line were created for this purpose, and the
committee just incurred the costs without going to the LNC within that
line).  ===

It is removed with the potential for a budget line, if needed, but the
first source would be to ask for voluntary donors just like volunteers.

==

I don't want to get into most of the other points raised at the moment, but
I'll add that volunteer time is, of course, not totally fungible, but I
suspect it is more fungible than we often think.==

In some areas perhaps, but I am pretty deeply entrenched in the LP History
enthusiast "community" and it isn't there.  For instance I have volunteers
ready to give full days in scanning - these are not people volunteering to
give full days for anything else.

The website issues over two transitions (this pre-dated Ken, not a slam on
Ken) were botched, and our members are pretty convinced, and it certainly
looks like - we don't care about our history.  Yet it is also
understandable that this coming up at a quarterly meeting is frustrating
amongst all the other business the LNC handles.  This disposes of both and
puts people who want to spend the time on this and deeply care about it -
to handle it.

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thank you Joshua:
>
> It seems to me that there are 3 (really 4, but see below) categories of
> tasks that matter here.  They are:
>
> 1.  Things we do now.
> 1a.Things that can be done now without a motion, but aren't.
> 2.  What the makers of this motion intend to do that isn't done now.
> 3.  What will be done as a result of this motion passing, in 10 years,
> when few of us are on the LNC.
>
> Obviously, we want 2 and 3 to be as close to identical as possible.  I'm
> getting the sense from some of the discussion that they aren't, and I will
> try to make some suggestions on the document to bring them closer together.
>
>
> My question is on the relation between 1 and 1a together, and 2.  What,
> exactly, is in 2 that is not in 1 or 1a?  To give some examples:  is there
> anything not being stored that the makers want to see stored?
>
> There are things not being made available or stored in a meaningful way we
> would like to see stored.  For instance, we have all the copies of past
> press releases.  What good are they doing in a file cabinet?  So what we
> are doing now is storing them (either physically or electronically) but not
> preserving them in a meaningful way - meaning to be of use to members.  And
> even the ones we have stored electronically (and this is one category, I
> could expand this further) have not been done reliably - i.e. the "lost"
> data on the websites that might be better suited on an LPedia interface.
> And this could happen again.  This would insure a committee actually
> provides oversight and responsibility for making sure these things get done
> so it doesn't became an LNC discussion that is too remote to other things
> we have to discuss in our limited time.  These records represent the
> tangible output that members paid money for.
>
> ==So far as I know, there is nothing stopping volunteers from going into
> the basement and scanning things.  At least, that's the impression I have
> from the fact that my colleague from Colorado, a stickler about rules, did
> so, with another volunteer member, and there was no suggestion of
> impropriety.  What stops us from, without doing anything, having volunteers
> do that?==
>
> An organization to direct them in a meaningful way, and there is certainly
> something "official" about volunteering for an actual committee and having
> that organizational power and oversight.  And volunteers can scan, go off
> merrily into their own files, and it isn't preserved for party members at
> large - which is something we have already committed to for years with
> LPedia, and done it poorly.
>
> ==Which brings me to another question - what, exactly, will this
> committee decide?  It seems to me that the answer might be nothing, but I'm
> not sure on that.==
>
> It will make decisions on things to insure are on LPedia and recommend
> destruction of preserved items if needed.  It will decide on best practice
> for document preservation and best order of going about the project. It
> will also administer LPedia - so that staff will not have to worry about
> it.  LPedia hopefully will grow into something that needs some dedicated
> management.
>
> ==  That is, it looks like it will not be an empowered committee, and
> will only make recommendations to the LNC, albeit with special rules of
> order that will make it easier for things to pass (but, I suggest, might
> impact the vote threshold for this motion, as well as make the Policy
> Manual a bit more confusing - it might be good to have this motion amend
> the Special Rules of Order section of the Policy Manual as well, and leave
> the rules of order parts out of the committee description and scope).  ==
>
> To the second part, I would like to hear your suggestions on that.
>
> ==Since it was posted, the scope of those recommendations has been
> narrowed somewhat (my understanding of the deleted line about expenditures
> seems to have been different from that of several others - I didn't see it
> giving the committee unlimited power to commit us to expenditures, but I
> did see it as oddly outside the budget process, as others have pointed out
> - I might prefer if a budget line were created for this purpose, and the
> committee just incurred the costs without going to the LNC within that
> line).  ===
>
> It is removed with the potential for a budget line, if needed, but the
> first source would be to ask for voluntary donors just like volunteers.
>
> ==
>
> I don't want to get into most of the other points raised at the moment,
> but I'll add that volunteer time is, of course, not totally fungible, but I
> suspect it is more fungible than we often think.==
>
> In some areas perhaps, but I am pretty deeply entrenched in the LP History
> enthusiast "community" and it isn't there.  For instance I have volunteers
> ready to give full days in scanning - these are not people volunteering to
> give full days for anything else.
>
> The website issues over two transitions (this pre-dated Ken, not a slam on
> Ken) were botched, and our members are pretty convinced, and it certainly
> looks like - we don't care about our history.  Yet it is also
> understandable that this coming up at a quarterly meeting is frustrating
> amongst all the other business the LNC handles.  This disposes of both and
> puts people who want to spend the time on this and deeply care about it -
> to handle it.
>
> --Caryn Ann
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I haven't decided how I will vote on this, and the debate here hasn't
>> helped me.  Let me revisit some of the comments I made on the document
>> itself, but in a more inquisitive manner, and see if I can get some light
>> on the matter.
>>
>> It seems to me that there are 3 (really 4, but see below) categories of
>> tasks that matter here.  They are:
>>
>> 1.  Things we do now.
>> 1a.Things that can be done now without a motion, but aren't.
>> 2.  What the makers of this motion intend to do that isn't done now.
>> 3.  What will be done as a result of this motion passing, in 10 years,
>> when few of us are on the LNC.
>>
>> Obviously, we want 2 and 3 to be as close to identical as possible.  I'm
>> getting the sense from some of the discussion that they aren't, and I will
>> try to make some suggestions on the document to bring them closer together.
>>
>>
>> My question is on the relation between 1 and 1a together, and 2.  What,
>> exactly, is in 2 that is not in 1 or 1a?  To give some examples:  is there
>> anything not being stored that the makers want to see stored?
>>
>> So far as I know, there is nothing stopping volunteers from going into
>> the basement and scanning things.  At least, that's the impression I have
>> from the fact that my colleague from Colorado, a stickler about rules, did
>> so, with another volunteer member, and there was no suggestion of
>> impropriety.  What stops us from, without doing anything, having volunteers
>> do that?
>>
>> Which brings me to another question - what, exactly, will this committee
>> decide?  It seems to me that the answer might be nothing, but I'm not sure
>> on that.  That is, it looks like it will not be an empowered committee, and
>> will only make recommendations to the LNC, albeit with special rules of
>> order that will make it easier for things to pass (but, I suggest, might
>> impact the vote threshold for this motion, as well as make the Policy
>> Manual a bit more confusing - it might be good to have this motion amend
>> the Special Rules of Order section of the Policy Manual as well, and leave
>> the rules of order parts out of the committee description and scope).
>> Since it was posted, the scope of those recommendations has been narrowed
>> somewhat (my understanding of the deleted line about expenditures seems to
>> have been different from that of several others - I didn't see it giving
>> the committee unlimited power to commit us to expenditures, but I did see
>> it as oddly outside the budget process, as others have pointed out - I
>> might prefer if a budget line were created for this purpose, and the
>> committee just incurred the costs without going to the LNC within that
>> line).
>>
>> So, in sum, here is what I would like to know:
>> What, exactly, will this motion allow to happen, that cannot happen now?
>> Why is a committee needed for this purpose?
>>
>> These questions are actually closely related, because they both get at
>> why this is a committee, rather than a group of volunteers doing work.
>>
>> I don't want to get into most of the other points raised at the moment,
>> but I'll add that volunteer time is, of course, not totally fungible, but I
>> suspect it is more fungible than we often think.
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am at a full screen computer now, and can get better address:
>>>
>>> *With the assistance of staff and the Secretary, maintain all physical
>>> historic information in a safe and climate controlled environment.*
>>>
>>> This is already done. Decisions are already made - either explicitly or
>>> implicitly - about what is kept. This does not change that.
>>>
>>> *With the assistance of staff and the Secretary, collect all public
>>> electronic records.*
>>>
>>> This is already done. When things are made public, they are either
>>> electronic or physical. They are already been saved.
>>>
>>> *Make a good faith effort to preserve and publish all available
>>> historical party documents, and transform physical documents into
>>> electronic format toward that end.*
>>>
>>> Historical documents are not kept for mere utility reference, but for
>>> their historical value. We don't put out that much "publicly" and what is
>>> put out has a historical value in saving. Though this section could be
>>> tweaked to give greater discretion to the committee on items.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Make a good faith effort to preserve and, and within its discretion, to
>>> publish, all available historical party documents, and transform physical
>>> documents into electronic format toward that end.*
>>>
>>> I would make the point of volunteer times. Their times is their to
>>> spend. There are volunteers waiting to be involved.  Their time is not
>>> fungible, people get involved in what they are passionate about.
>>>
>>> - Caryn Ann
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Alicia,
>>>>
>>>> First I would ask if there is language you could suggest.
>>>>
>>>> As in the "all" - it is what we are doing now.  Nothing is being
>>>> added.  All records that are public records.
>>>>
>>>> The committee is tasked with a good faith effort to publish them yes.
>>>> Nearly everything being referred to will have been published previously -
>>>> this is making the permanent archive.
>>>>
>>>> Top level history is subjective.  The Wiki now is far from only top
>>>> level- histories of some county parties are preserved if someone was
>>>> interested in them.
>>>>
>>>> What is useful is very much subjective.  To those very interested in
>>>> having a good complete record of our history, they are all.
>>>>
>>>> Volunteer time is like earmarked money. If a volunteer wants to give
>>>> it- that is their choice, not ours on what we deem fruitful.  I already
>>>> know volunteers willing to be dedicated. There is a core of people
>>>> interested in historical matters.
>>>>
>>>> A treasure trove of records exist.
>>>>
>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:53 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think the scope of this committee, as proposed, is so broad that
>>>>> it's a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I really being asked to be partially responsible for preserving ALL
>>>>> physical historic information (in #1), and ALL public electronic records
>>>>> (in #2)?  And the committee is additionally tasked with publishing ALL
>>>>> historical documents (in #4)?
>>>>>
>>>>> "All" is an awfully large amount of information, and it means there
>>>>> would never be anything deemed inappropriate for inclusion because it says
>>>>> "all".
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought this was just going to be some top-level history like
>>>>> whatever is on the wiki right now, but this proposal is a massive expansion
>>>>> in scope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some historical documents are useful to keep around for reference.
>>>>> Others just aren't, so why spend time preserving ALL of them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are we going to spend our limited volunteer time and effort
>>>>> documenting the past, or are we going to instead focus on how to make our
>>>>> future efforts have more real-world results?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alicia
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The following is a motion seeking a sponsor and co-sponsors, to
>>>>> create the Historic Preservation Committee, tasked with preserving and
>>>>> publishing all historical documents of the Party.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Add a line item to chart in subsection 1 of section 1.03 of the
>>>>> Policy Manual, which reads (column name in italics):**(Committee
>>>>> name)* Historic Preservation Committee
>>>>> *(Size)* Two (2) LNC Members or Alternates, plus up to five (5)
>>>>> non-LNC members.
>>>>> *(Member Selection)* LNC Members or Alternates selected by LNC.
>>>>> Non-LNC members selected by the committee, which shall be accepted unless
>>>>> objected to by a majority of the LNC within 14 days of notification.
>>>>> *(Chair Selection)* * Committee Selected
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Create a new subsection under section 2.02 of the Policy Manual,
>>>>> which reads:*x) Historic Preservation Committee
>>>>>
>>>>> The goal of the Historic Preservation Committee is to preserve
>>>>> historical documents of the party.  To that end, the committee shall:
>>>>> 1. With the assistance of staff and the Secretary, maintain all
>>>>> physical historic information in a safe and climate controlled environment.
>>>>> Any costs for document storage shall be presented to the LNC and shall be
>>>>> accepted unless objected to by the majority of the entire LNC within 14
>>>>> days.
>>>>> 2. With the assistance of staff and the Secretary, collect all public
>>>>> electronic records.
>>>>> 3. With the assistance of the IT Committee and staff, provide and
>>>>> maintain a permanent public document archive in the form of a
>>>>> publicly-viewable website which is separate from the Party’s primary
>>>>> website.
>>>>> 4. Make a good faith effort to preserve and publish all historical
>>>>> documents, and transform physical documents into electronic format toward
>>>>> that end.
>>>>> 5. Vote to recommend the destruction of any original document, or
>>>>> document for which no other copy is available. No such document shall be
>>>>> destroyed without the consent of the LNC, as outlined in Section 2.07(x).
>>>>> 6. At each LNC meeting, present a summary of physical document
>>>>> preservation mechanisms currently being utilized, and the number of
>>>>> documents preserved in electronic format.
>>>>> 7. Ensure that any document that would qualify for discussion under
>>>>> the rules of executive session for the LNC, as outlined under Section
>>>>> 1.02(5), remains private until such time that the Executive Committee, or
>>>>> the entire LNC, meeting in executive session, votes in the affirmative to
>>>>> make that information public.
>>>>> 8. Within one business day, inform the LNC of any committee
>>>>> appointments.
>>>>> 9. Publicly announce and permit a public audience for all meetings,
>>>>> other than those meetings held for the explicit purpose of discussing
>>>>> historic items that would qualify for Executive Session.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing listed in the responsibilities, powers, or scope of this
>>>>> Committee shall be construed to prevent or circumvent the normal operation
>>>>> of the Party’s main website or to interfere in the duties of the Secretary
>>>>> as mandated by the Party Bylaws or this Policy Manual.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Create a new subsection under section 2.07 of the Policy Manual,
>>>>> which reads:*(x) All agendas, public meeting minutes, and public
>>>>> records of the Party shall be made available to the Historic Preservation
>>>>> Committee.  No data shall be deleted or destroyed without a vote in the
>>>>> affirmative by no less than two-thirds of the entire LNC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>>>>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>>>>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
*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/20170110/ee439491/attachment-0002.html>