[Lnc-business] Motion:

Tue Jan 10 13:53:25 EST 2017

Interested in your suggestions

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:52 AM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> >To the second part, I would like to hear your suggestions on that.
>
> I can spend some time drafting it later this week, but I'm really just
> talking about splitting off parts of what you already have and putting them
> in other places.
>
> >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.
>
> Makes sense, but that money still has to go somewhere, so we need a line
> either way.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170110/0b303550/attachment-0002.html>