[Lnc-business] the FB group

[Richard Longstreth]

Well Susan, you bring up another interesting idea. If we did fork some
discussion temporarily and found it to be effective and more of an
inconvenience to have to go to email to vote, we could amend our policy
manual to make an asset of the LNC as a whole where voting is done there.
That wasn't my initial thought but I kinda like the idea, after proof of
concept of course.

I'm find it an interesting comparison to media evolution in general btw.
First there were letters and phone calls here and in the real world. Then
the real world went to forums (and now 'social media'). This could kinda of
be a next evolution of LNC modernization if we do find a forum to overall
be more effective. This would free up email for our constituents primarily
which, honestly, I would prefer.

Richard

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 12:02 Susan Hogarth via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

>    I understand nothing will stop backchannel discussions - and I’m not
>    even sure that would be a good idea if possible. What I am urging is
>    that we generally try to avoid large-scale backchannel/offchannel
>    discussions and that we definitely do not start setting up
>    parallel/forked lists without very very compelling reasons.
>
>    The rationale in this case was originally to ‘workshop resolutions’ -
>    is this really something that requires so much of the lnc’s bandwidth
>    that we need to in effect create a whole comitttee for it?
>
>    I do not see a compelling reason to start a fork in our discussions. It
>    is a hassle for some members to add yet another channel, it creates the
>    appearance of making transparency more difficult (the members will have
>    to basically follow us around from group to group), and when
>    ‘workshopped’ resolutions get back here then the same discussions will
>    have to take place all over again, except that the motions will already
>    have the requisite cosponsors and will not be amendable.
>
>    I understand the positive motivation behind this and I love the idea of
>    having free and open discussion on crafting resolutions. I think this
>    list is fine for that.
>
>    Susan Jane Hogarth
>
>    Region 5 Alternate
>
>    [1]919-906-2106
>
>    On Aug 18, 2018 at 2:50 PM, <[2]Justin O'Donnell via Lnc-business>
>    wrote:
>
>    The discussions here are already largely fragmented by broken threads,
>    out of order delivery, and delayed response to previous queries. The
>    ability to have offline unofficial discussions in an informal manner is
>    important to efficiency. I agree that debate and official discussion
>    should take place on the official list, but nothing is going to stop
>    members from having offline discussions to discuss the goings on.
>    Justin O'Donnell
>    LNC Region 8 Representative
>
> References
>
>    1. tel:919-906-2106
>    2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
-- 
Richard Longstreth
Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA, WY)
Libertarian National Committee
richard.longstreth at lp.org
931.538.9300
-------------- next part --------------
   Well Susan, you bring up another interesting idea. If we did fork some
   discussion temporarily and found it to be effective and more of an
   inconvenience to have to go to email to vote, we could amend our policy
   manual to make an asset of the LNC as a whole where voting is done
   there. That wasn't my initial thought but I kinda like the idea, after
   proof of concept of course.

   I'm find it an interesting comparison to media evolution in general
   btw. First there were letters and phone calls here and in the real
   world. Then the real world went to forums (and now 'social media').
   This could kinda of be a next evolution of LNC modernization if we do
   find a forum to overall be more effective. This would free up email for
   our constituents primarily which, honestly, I would prefer.

   Richard
   On Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 12:02 Susan Hogarth via Lnc-business
   <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

        I understand nothing will stop backchannel discussions - and I’m
     not
        even sure that would be a good idea if possible. What I am urging
     is
        that we generally try to avoid large-scale backchannel/offchannel
        discussions and that we definitely do not start setting up
        parallel/forked lists without very very compelling reasons.
        The rationale in this case was originally to ‘workshop
     resolutions’ -
        is this really something that requires so much of the lnc’s
     bandwidth
        that we need to in effect create a whole comitttee for it?
        I do not see a compelling reason to start a fork in our
     discussions. It
        is a hassle for some members to add yet another channel, it
     creates the
        appearance of making transparency more difficult (the members
     will have
        to basically follow us around from group to group), and when
        ‘workshopped’ resolutions get back here then the same discussions
     will
        have to take place all over again, except that the motions will
     already
        have the requisite cosponsors and will not be amendable.
        I understand the positive motivation behind this and I love the
     idea of
        having free and open discussion on crafting resolutions. I think
     this
        list is fine for that.
        Susan Jane Hogarth
        Region 5 Alternate
        [1]919-906-2106
        On Aug 18, 2018 at 2:50 PM, <[2]Justin O'Donnell via
     Lnc-business>
        wrote:
        The discussions here are already largely fragmented by broken
     threads,
        out of order delivery, and delayed response to previous queries.
     The
        ability to have offline unofficial discussions in an informal
     manner is
        important to efficiency. I agree that debate and official
     discussion
        should take place on the official list, but nothing is going to
     stop
        members from having offline discussions to discuss the goings on.
        Justin O'Donnell
        LNC Region 8 Representative
     References
        1. tel:919-906-2106
        2. mailto:[2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org

   --

   Richard Longstreth
   Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA, WY)
   Libertarian National Committee
   [3]richard.longstreth at lp.org
   931.538.9300

References

   1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   3. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org