[Lnc-business] LNC business list volume and email communication style

john.phillips at lp.org john.phillips at lp.org
Mon Aug 20 19:39:07 EDT 2018


Question.  Am I missing something on EVH's emails? Or does the --- have a meaning I am unaware of?
John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973
------ Original message------From: Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-businessDate: Mon, Aug 20, 2018 6:04 PMTo: Caryn Ann Harlos;Cc: Elizabeth Van Horn;lnc-business at hq.lp.org;Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] LNC business list volume and email communication	style
---
EVH 

On 2018-08-20 18:29, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

> A Policy Manual change is needed to clear up the vote versus debate issue.  I'm planning on putting that on the agenda 
> 
> -Caryn Ann  
> 
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 4:19 PM Whitney Bilyeu  wrote: 
> Thanks, Chuck. I wholeheartedly agree with you. I find the LNC communication standards to be a major problem. I object to moving the discussions to another place (unless we adopt a whole new forum for all comms), but I do think we can communicate better here. I would ask for more succinct arguments, keeping vote threads separate from discussion threads, ceasing hostilities, reducing unnecessary messages to the entire group, etc... 
> 
> I do not consider that a male thing, by the way, as that is how I communicate, and what I prefer, myself. While I dare not seek to make the LNC list in my own image, I am happy to note that the majority of LNC members tend to contribute in the manner you recommend. 
> 
> Whitney
> 
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 7:39 PM, Chuck Moulton  wrote:
> Libertarian National Committee members,
> 
> I write in my personal capacity as a life member of the Libertarian Party, not representing any of the bodies I serve on.  I apologize in advance for the length of this email... it has been brewing for a while.
> 
> I'm extremely concerned by the conduct of the LNC on the business email list.  I want to speak not on the substantive business itself, but rather on the volume and style of email communication.
> 
> Fundamentally, I believe some LNC members misunderstand the entire purpose of the business email list and are trying to re-conceptualize it into something completely different.  You are on the business list as a deliberative body to discuss the business of the party and vote on motions taking action as a board.  Some of you appear to be using it as a 24/7 stream-of-consciousness liberty rant.
> 
> The volume of email on this list is NOT NORMAL.  It is emphatically ABNORMAL.  Some of you may not be aware of how crazy it is because you are new to the LNC.  I invite you to look at the volume and content of email on the list from 4 or 5 years ago.  Although 1 person is the primary culprit of the ongoing problems -- and I'm not going to be diplomatic or pull punches: that person is Caryn Ann Harlos (who I supported in convention and voted for) --, I suspect some of the newer members are following her lead to varying degrees with respect to how they conduct themselves.  This is a BIG problem.
> 
> I completely agree with Joe Bishop-Henchmen, who recently sent the following 2 emails:
> 
> http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015056.html
> Efforts to work are welcome. Sending 68 emails in four days saying
> the same thing over and over, rushing to immediately respond to
> every. single. email. as if one has a duty to rise to the challenge
> for truth, justice, and the American Way, is counterproductive.
> 
> I often sleep on an email before I reply to it, if it's important but
> not urgent. Most people are very careful with how they write emails,
> with meanings that take a couple of readings. If I rush to get my
> word in edgewise, I miss that and people notice that I'm not hearing
> what they're trying to say. 
> http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015058.html
> if it's my email inbox you're cluttering up, it's not merely a
> personal matter. It's a basic courtesy that every workplace teaches.
> 
> We should want this list to be a place to do business, not a Facebook
> argument thread. 
> The LNC is supposed to act as a deliberative body on the LNC business list.  Many of you are not being deliberative.  I think many of you do not want to be deliberative.
> 
> More than 90% of the emails sent to your list are completely useless. In fact, saying 10% of the emails are useful is extremely generous.  The reason this happens is some of you lack basic email courtesy.
> 
> Before discussing what sorts of emails should not be sent, I think it may help to step back and consider why email courtesy and the style of email communication is important.
> 
> First, it takes longer for 1 person to compose an email than for 1 person to read that email; however, when 25 LNC members + several staff members + many other interested LP members read that email, you need to multiply the individual reading time for each email by the number of people reading it.  For example, if an email takes 5 minutes to compose and 1 minute for each individual to read and 40 people read that email, then a 5 minute investment by the sender costs 40 minutes for the recipients.  That may be all well and good if the content is useful; on the other hand, if the content is useless, then you have wasted a lot of time.
> 
> Second, when the total email volume is so high that it is not practical to read all the email, recipients must skip some email.  While trying to cut out reading the useless email, other list members may inadvertently miss important email.  If the volume of email were lower and the signal to noise ratio were higher, then important emails would not be overlooked.
> 
> In a deliberative body, members ought to deliberate, which means "engage in long and careful consideration".  Somewhere between reading something and responding to it, your brain ought to be involved in the process. Instead of simply replying to another LNC member's thoughts by robotically and immediately answering the question "What is my opinion on what he or she just said?", you should be giving yourself several minutes (or ideally hours) to digest what was said.  You should be asking yourself "Would my response add anything to the discussion?", "Have I already said this before?", "Would someone reading my reply learn something new?", "Does it need to be sent to the whole list?", "Could I write this more succinctly?", etc.
> 
> Here are a few steps LNC members could take to use basic email courtesy and decrease the insane list volume:
> 
> 1. Eliminate all emails which simply agree or disagree without reasoning.  About half the emails to the list are things like "I agree with X." or "+1" or "so. much. this." or "me too", or the opposite (disagreeing).  I believe this is the Facebook culture permeating and infecting email lists.  You all apparently want a like button.  This is completely useless and wastes everyone's time.  Instead I would suggest either making additional discussion points which have not been brought up yet, or just not emailing at all.  If one absolutely must feed ego by hacking together a like button, I would suggest just replying to the sender directly rather than to the whole list.  Or you could create a Twitter account that posts a link to the LNC business post followed by a thumbs up emoji or a frownie face.
> 
> 2. Do not post redundant discussion -- even when it is actually germane.  Some of you post identical talking points over and over and over again.  We get your position.  Your redundancy is not winning you any converts; it is just annoying people.  If you want to add to the discussion, then you should make points you have not brought up before.
> 
> 3. Reply directly to people rather than to the whole list.  Frequently LNC members ask the LNC for help on some task and their colleagues oblige.  At least 75% of the time they could just email a reply directly rather than CCing the rest of the LNC.  Whenever you send an email, you should be asking yourself whether it is actually useful information for everybody or just targeted at one person.
> 
> 4. Trim your emails.  Some LNC members complained in the past about 300 links at the bottom of the email.  This only happens because most of you copy the last 50 years of discussion every single email.  Most of what you haphazardly quote is completely irrelevant.  In more than half of the emails you send, you are only addressing a single sentence or paragraph of the last email.  Cut out the rest.  Only quote what you are actually replying to.  That makes email discussion a lot easier to follow -- and has the added benefit of taking less space and avoiding 300 links as garbage.  I would suggest emailing on actual computers rather than phones, but note even phones allow quoting: on an iPhone highlight 1 sentence, then click the reply button.
> 
> 5. Think before you send.  In most cases it is possible (and advisable) to sit on an email for 24 hours.  If a day is too long, then try waiting 4 hours.  Waiting can be calming, make your reply more logical, and help you avoid writing things which are misinterpreted.  I've found when I sit on an email for 24 hours, 75% of the time I decide not to send it. The other 25% of the time, I make several edits which fix spelling or grammar errors, make my point clearer, tone it down, or avoid misinterpretation.
> 
> 6. Consolidate emails.  When I am following an email discussion, sometimes I see 4 different points by 4 different people on the same topic which I want to address.  Instead of sending 4 emails, I send one email which quotes each of them and replies appropriately.  This saves on email volume and also helps you compose your thoughts better and be less redundant.
> 
> 7. Change the subject line when the thread shifts focus.  This can make the discussion easier to follow rather than having to sift through emails with completely unrelated subjects.
> 
> 8. Check your spelling, grammar, and usage.  I cringe every time I read emails misusing "its" and "it's", "your" and "you're", etc.  We are the third largest political party in the United States... when our national committee writes unprofessionally it reflects poorly on the organization.  (Many people use bad spelling, grammar, and usage as a proxy to infer stupidity or poor education.)  This is especially important with respect to language on which you vote.
> 
> 9. If you are feeling hotheaded or think something you are saying may be misinterpreted, then get a second opinion before sending it.  Ask your spouse or friend to read over your email.
> 
> 10. Respect the opinions of others.  It is incredibly rude to browbeat a colleague because you don't like his or her vote.  The vote speaks for itself.  Allow others to disagree in peace.  If you actually believe you can change someone's mind, it would be more respectful to pick up the phone and call your colleague to have a real discussion (i.e., actively listen seeing where he is coming from and how you can change his mind, instead of just talking at him) rather than publicly lambasting him for the vote.
> 
> 11. You do not need to reply to everything.  Don't worry: we probably already know your opinion without you replying anyway.  Failing to respond to an email does not mean you concede a debate point.  Also, your audience will not assume you are sleeping at the wheel.  If just two people on a list believe they must respond to every email, then that by definition will create an infinite number of emails.
> 
> 12. Concision is better than verbosity.  Sometimes it takes longer to write a short message than a long message; however, your colleagues will appreciate the former.  As FDR once said: "Be sincere, be brief, be seated."
> 
> 13. Remember the audience and the purpose of the list.  If you wouldn't say something in a LNC meeting, you probably shouldn't say it on the LNC business list.
> 
> I believe if all LNC members mostly followed those bits of basic email courtesy, the volume of the list would be dramatically reduced without sacrificing any of the actual discussion.
> 
> I see the LNC is now discussing moving discussion to phpBB.  That is a TERRIBLE idea.  The only reason this list is dysfunctional in the first place is several members -- particularly Caryn Ann Harlos -- are not following basic email courtesy.  Moving all or part of the discussion to another forum would just make that discussion even harder to follow. Additionally, it would further exacerbate the volume problem.  The very people causing the problem in the first place are those who want to move to a different venue.  They want to do this because other media are more conducive to what they actually want: a 24/7 stream-of-consciousness liberty rant.  Email is more deliberative than phpBB.  phpBB is more deliberative than Slack.  Slack is more deliberative than Facebook. Facebook is more deliberative than texting.  The LNC should be a deliberative group.
> 
> If some members of the LNC are unable to act with a modicum of courtesy, there is a less restrictive alternative than moving the substantive discussion to a medium less suited to that purpose.  Instead the LNC could create a second list called (for example) "useless-drivel" and LNC members could send their extra messages to that list.
> 
> I have seen some LNC members defend the practice of subjecting others to their pollution.  Recently, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> 
> http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015057.html
> Not everyone communicates the same way Joe, and we all have to be
> tolerant of that.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Your way is not my way. My way is not your way. And that's okay. 
> http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015066.html
> Joe with all due respect you signed up to part of a group of diverse
> people, not to dictate to them that they must conform to your
> communication style. I have to tell you that I have zero intention of
> changing my practice 
> http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015067.html
> PS: I counted them. It wasn't 68. It was in the 40s because I
> interact with each person's comments. Do people post to the list not
> to get a response?? I am sorry, but it is NOT unreasonable to have
> that many emails when someone is very very active in a group of 17
> people. [...] And like it or not, dealing with this email list is
> part of the job. If we met more often, there would be less emails. As
> I say periodically, the fact that we do not meet monthly is
> ridiculous to me. 
> First, she says she must "interact with each person's comments", which is ridiculous.  This is the Facebook culture of reply to everything or you concede the debate.
> 
> Second, she says dealing with this email list is part of the job.  The right to talk does not imply a right to be heard.  Time is a scarce commodity and everyone sensibly makes efficient use of his or or time through filtering.  Chair Sarwark, regional representative Lark, and at-large member Bishop-Henchman do not write the business list often, but when they do their emails are well-reasoned and people read them. In contrast, some LNC members have suggested that Ms. Harlos's messages go directly into the trash or their spam folder.  If I were on the LNC, I would strongly consider setting up such an email filter.  If the audience isn't listening, that's the fault of the speaker, not the audience.  Be more judicious with your emails and people will not skip or skim them.
> 
> Third, not all communication styles are okay.  A bulk email marketer could say spamming people with unsolicited email is his communication style.  Someone else could say profanity laden rants are his communication style.  Neither would be acceptable in ordinary society or in the workplace.  When you send emails to a list read by 30-40 people, your communication style imposes costs on others.  Ignoring those costs displays a lack of empathy (bordering on autism).  When someone sends hundreds of useless emails wasting colleagues' time, it would be charitable to call such behavior rude; I would call it abusive.
> 
> This is going to be a long and frustrating LNC term if some of you continue disrespecting your colleagues.  It doesn't have to be that way.  The LNC can be (and has been) collegial.
> 
> With all that said, I advocate the following actions:
> 
> 1. I ask the LNC not to move substantive discussion to a different communication medium than the LNC business email list.  As an interested LP member, I would like to continue to follow such discussion.
> 
> 2. I implore LNC members to individually consider the costs their communication styles impose on others, and to individually make an effort to be more respectful to their LNC colleagues (and to interested observers) by following basic email courtesy.
> 
> 3. If the list volume continues to be insane, I request that the LNC formally adopt the Bishop-Henchman "$1 per email after 5 emails a day" rule in the LNC Policy Manual at the upcoming in-person LNC meeting.  (I do not comment on whether this would be allowed under the bylaws and rules, and I would gladly recuse myself if it were appealed; I simply am declaring I think it would be a good idea.)  At least if rude LNC members waste many hours of your (really, our) time, the LP ought to get some money out of it to build the party.
> 
> Thank you very much for your time.
> 
> Chuck Moulton
> Life Member and Monthly Pledger, Libertarian Party
 -- 

-- 

IN LIBERTY, 
CARYN ANN HARLOS 
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary -
Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org. 
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org 

A haiku to the Statement of Principles: 
_We defend your rights_ 
_And oppose the use of force_ 
_Taxation is theft_
   ---
   EVH

   On 2018-08-20 18:29, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

   A Policy Manual change is needed to clear up the vote versus debate
   issue.  I'm planning on putting that on the agenda



   -Caryn Ann





   On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 4:19 PM Whitney Bilyeu
   <[1]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org> wrote:

   Thanks, Chuck. I wholeheartedly agree with you. I find the LNC
   communication standards to be a major problem. I object to moving the
   discussions to another place (unless we adopt a whole new forum for all
   comms), but I do think we can communicate better here. I would ask for
   more succinct arguments, keeping vote threads separate from discussion
   threads, ceasing hostilities, reducing unnecessary messages to the
   entire group, etc...

   I do not consider that a male thing, by the way, as that is how I
   communicate, and what I prefer, myself. While I dare not seek to make
   the LNC list in my own image, I am happy to note that the majority of
   LNC members tend to contribute in the manner you recommend.


   Whitney



   On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 7:39 PM, Chuck Moulton <[2]chuck at moulton.org>
   wrote:

     Libertarian National Committee members,
     I write in my personal capacity as a life member of the Libertarian
     Party, not representing any of the bodies I serve on.  I apologize
     in advance for the length of this email... it has been brewing for a
     while.
     I'm extremely concerned by the conduct of the LNC on the business
     email list.  I want to speak not on the substantive business itself,
     but rather on the volume and style of email communication.
     Fundamentally, I believe some LNC members misunderstand the entire
     purpose of the business email list and are trying to
     re-conceptualize it into something completely different.  You are on
     the business list as a deliberative body to discuss the business of
     the party and vote on motions taking action as a board.  Some of you
     appear to be using it as a 24/7 stream-of-consciousness liberty
     rant.
     The volume of email on this list is NOT NORMAL.  It is emphatically
     ABNORMAL.  Some of you may not be aware of how crazy it is because
     you are new to the LNC.  I invite you to look at the volume and
     content of email on the list from 4 or 5 years ago.  Although 1
     person is the primary culprit of the ongoing problems -- and I'm not
     going to be diplomatic or pull punches: that person is Caryn Ann
     Harlos (who I supported in convention and voted for) --, I suspect
     some of the newer members are following her lead to varying degrees
     with respect to how they conduct themselves.  This is a BIG problem.
     I completely agree with Joe Bishop-Henchmen, who recently sent the
     following 2 emails:
     [3]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015056.html

     Efforts to work are welcome. Sending 68 emails in four days saying
     the same thing over and over, rushing to immediately respond to
     every. single. email. as if one has a duty to rise to the challenge
     for truth, justice, and the American Way, is counterproductive.
     I often sleep on an email before I reply to it, if it's important
     but
     not urgent. Most people are very careful with how they write emails,
     with meanings that take a couple of readings. If I rush to get my
     word in edgewise, I miss that and people notice that I'm not hearing
     what they're trying to say.

     [4]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015058.html

     if it's my email inbox you're cluttering up, it's not merely a
     personal matter. It's a basic courtesy that every workplace teaches.
     We should want this list to be a place to do business, not a
     Facebook
     argument thread.

     The LNC is supposed to act as a deliberative body on the LNC
     business list.  Many of you are not being deliberative.  I think
     many of you do not want to be deliberative.
     More than 90% of the emails sent to your list are completely
     useless. In fact, saying 10% of the emails are useful is extremely
     generous.  The reason this happens is some of you lack basic email
     courtesy.
     Before discussing what sorts of emails should not be sent, I think
     it may help to step back and consider why email courtesy and the
     style of email communication is important.
     First, it takes longer for 1 person to compose an email than for 1
     person to read that email; however, when 25 LNC members + several
     staff members + many other interested LP members read that email,
     you need to multiply the individual reading time for each email by
     the number of people reading it.  For example, if an email takes 5
     minutes to compose and 1 minute for each individual to read and 40
     people read that email, then a 5 minute investment by the sender
     costs 40 minutes for the recipients.  That may be all well and good
     if the content is useful; on the other hand, if the content is
     useless, then you have wasted a lot of time.
     Second, when the total email volume is so high that it is not
     practical to read all the email, recipients must skip some email.
     While trying to cut out reading the useless email, other list
     members may inadvertently miss important email.  If the volume of
     email were lower and the signal to noise ratio were higher, then
     important emails would not be overlooked.
     In a deliberative body, members ought to deliberate, which means
     "engage in long and careful consideration".  Somewhere between
     reading something and responding to it, your brain ought to be
     involved in the process. Instead of simply replying to another LNC
     member's thoughts by robotically and immediately answering the
     question "What is my opinion on what he or she just said?", you
     should be giving yourself several minutes (or ideally hours) to
     digest what was said.  You should be asking yourself "Would my
     response add anything to the discussion?", "Have I already said this
     before?", "Would someone reading my reply learn something new?",
     "Does it need to be sent to the whole list?", "Could I write this
     more succinctly?", etc.
     Here are a few steps LNC members could take to use basic email
     courtesy and decrease the insane list volume:
     1. Eliminate all emails which simply agree or disagree without
     reasoning.  About half the emails to the list are things like "I
     agree with X." or "+1" or "so. much. this." or "me too", or the
     opposite (disagreeing).  I believe this is the Facebook culture
     permeating and infecting email lists.  You all apparently want a
     like button.  This is completely useless and wastes everyone's
     time.  Instead I would suggest either making additional discussion
     points which have not been brought up yet, or just not emailing at
     all.  If one absolutely must feed ego by hacking together a like
     button, I would suggest just replying to the sender directly rather
     than to the whole list.  Or you could create a Twitter account that
     posts a link to the LNC business post followed by a thumbs up emoji
     or a frownie face.
     2. Do not post redundant discussion -- even when it is actually
     germane.  Some of you post identical talking points over and over
     and over again.  We get your position.  Your redundancy is not
     winning you any converts; it is just annoying people.  If you want
     to add to the discussion, then you should make points you have not
     brought up before.
     3. Reply directly to people rather than to the whole list.
     Frequently LNC members ask the LNC for help on some task and their
     colleagues oblige.  At least 75% of the time they could just email a
     reply directly rather than CCing the rest of the LNC.  Whenever you
     send an email, you should be asking yourself whether it is actually
     useful information for everybody or just targeted at one person.
     4. Trim your emails.  Some LNC members complained in the past about
     300 links at the bottom of the email.  This only happens because
     most of you copy the last 50 years of discussion every single
     email.  Most of what you haphazardly quote is completely
     irrelevant.  In more than half of the emails you send, you are only
     addressing a single sentence or paragraph of the last email.  Cut
     out the rest.  Only quote what you are actually replying to.  That
     makes email discussion a lot easier to follow -- and has the added
     benefit of taking less space and avoiding 300 links as garbage.  I
     would suggest emailing on actual computers rather than phones, but
     note even phones allow quoting: on an iPhone highlight 1 sentence,
     then click the reply button.
     5. Think before you send.  In most cases it is possible (and
     advisable) to sit on an email for 24 hours.  If a day is too long,
     then try waiting 4 hours.  Waiting can be calming, make your reply
     more logical, and help you avoid writing things which are
     misinterpreted.  I've found when I sit on an email for 24 hours, 75%
     of the time I decide not to send it. The other 25% of the time, I
     make several edits which fix spelling or grammar errors, make my
     point clearer, tone it down, or avoid misinterpretation.
     6. Consolidate emails.  When I am following an email discussion,
     sometimes I see 4 different points by 4 different people on the same
     topic which I want to address.  Instead of sending 4 emails, I send
     one email which quotes each of them and replies appropriately.  This
     saves on email volume and also helps you compose your thoughts
     better and be less redundant.
     7. Change the subject line when the thread shifts focus.  This can
     make the discussion easier to follow rather than having to sift
     through emails with completely unrelated subjects.
     8. Check your spelling, grammar, and usage.  I cringe every time I
     read emails misusing "its" and "it's", "your" and "you're", etc.  We
     are the third largest political party in the United States... when
     our national committee writes unprofessionally it reflects poorly on
     the organization.  (Many people use bad spelling, grammar, and usage
     as a proxy to infer stupidity or poor education.)  This is
     especially important with respect to language on which you vote.
     9. If you are feeling hotheaded or think something you are saying
     may be misinterpreted, then get a second opinion before sending it.
     Ask your spouse or friend to read over your email.
     10. Respect the opinions of others.  It is incredibly rude to
     browbeat a colleague because you don't like his or her vote.  The
     vote speaks for itself.  Allow others to disagree in peace.  If you
     actually believe you can change someone's mind, it would be more
     respectful to pick up the phone and call your colleague to have a
     real discussion (i.e., actively listen seeing where he is coming
     from and how you can change his mind, instead of just talking at
     him) rather than publicly lambasting him for the vote.
     11. You do not need to reply to everything.  Don't worry: we
     probably already know your opinion without you replying anyway.
     Failing to respond to an email does not mean you concede a debate
     point.  Also, your audience will not assume you are sleeping at the
     wheel.  If just two people on a list believe they must respond to
     every email, then that by definition will create an infinite number
     of emails.
     12. Concision is better than verbosity.  Sometimes it takes longer
     to write a short message than a long message; however, your
     colleagues will appreciate the former.  As FDR once said: "Be
     sincere, be brief, be seated."
     13. Remember the audience and the purpose of the list.  If you
     wouldn't say something in a LNC meeting, you probably shouldn't say
     it on the LNC business list.
     I believe if all LNC members mostly followed those bits of basic
     email courtesy, the volume of the list would be dramatically reduced
     without sacrificing any of the actual discussion.
     I see the LNC is now discussing moving discussion to phpBB.  That is
     a TERRIBLE idea.  The only reason this list is dysfunctional in the
     first place is several members -- particularly Caryn Ann Harlos --
     are not following basic email courtesy.  Moving all or part of the
     discussion to another forum would just make that discussion even
     harder to follow. Additionally, it would further exacerbate the
     volume problem.  The very people causing the problem in the first
     place are those who want to move to a different venue.  They want to
     do this because other media are more conducive to what they actually
     want: a 24/7 stream-of-consciousness liberty rant.  Email is more
     deliberative than phpBB.  phpBB is more deliberative than Slack.
     Slack is more deliberative than Facebook. Facebook is more
     deliberative than texting.  The LNC should be a deliberative group.
     If some members of the LNC are unable to act with a modicum of
     courtesy, there is a less restrictive alternative than moving the
     substantive discussion to a medium less suited to that purpose.
     Instead the LNC could create a second list called (for example)
     "useless-drivel" and LNC members could send their extra messages to
     that list.
     I have seen some LNC members defend the practice of subjecting
     others to their pollution.  Recently, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
     [5]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015057.html

     Not everyone communicates the same way Joe, and we all have to be
     tolerant of that.
     [...]
     Your way is not my way. My way is not your way. And that's okay.

     [6]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015066.html

     Joe with all due respect you signed up to part of a group of diverse
     people, not to dictate to them that they must conform to your
     communication style. I have to tell you that I have zero intention
     of
     changing my practice

     [7]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015067.html

     PS: I counted them. It wasn't 68. It was in the 40s because I
     interact with each person's comments. Do people post to the list not
     to get a response?? I am sorry, but it is NOT unreasonable to have
     that many emails when someone is very very active in a group of 17
     people. [...] And like it or not, dealing with this email list is
     part of the job. If we met more often, there would be less emails.
     As
     I say periodically, the fact that we do not meet monthly is
     ridiculous to me.

     First, she says she must "interact with each person's comments",
     which is ridiculous.  This is the Facebook culture of reply to
     everything or you concede the debate.
     Second, she says dealing with this email list is part of the job.
     The right to talk does not imply a right to be heard.  Time is a
     scarce commodity and everyone sensibly makes efficient use of his or
     or time through filtering.  Chair Sarwark, regional representative
     Lark, and at-large member Bishop-Henchman do not write the business
     list often, but when they do their emails are well-reasoned and
     people read them. In contrast, some LNC members have suggested that
     Ms. Harlos's messages go directly into the trash or their spam
     folder.  If I were on the LNC, I would strongly consider setting up
     such an email filter.  If the audience isn't listening, that's the
     fault of the speaker, not the audience.  Be more judicious with your
     emails and people will not skip or skim them.
     Third, not all communication styles are okay.  A bulk email marketer
     could say spamming people with unsolicited email is his
     communication style.  Someone else could say profanity laden rants
     are his communication style.  Neither would be acceptable in
     ordinary society or in the workplace.  When you send emails to a
     list read by 30-40 people, your communication style imposes costs on
     others.  Ignoring those costs displays a lack of empathy (bordering
     on autism).  When someone sends hundreds of useless emails wasting
     colleagues' time, it would be charitable to call such behavior rude;
     I would call it abusive.
     This is going to be a long and frustrating LNC term if some of you
     continue disrespecting your colleagues.  It doesn't have to be that
     way.  The LNC can be (and has been) collegial.
     With all that said, I advocate the following actions:
     1. I ask the LNC not to move substantive discussion to a different
     communication medium than the LNC business email list.  As an
     interested LP member, I would like to continue to follow such
     discussion.
     2. I implore LNC members to individually consider the costs their
     communication styles impose on others, and to individually make an
     effort to be more respectful to their LNC colleagues (and to
     interested observers) by following basic email courtesy.
     3. If the list volume continues to be insane, I request that the LNC
     formally adopt the Bishop-Henchman "$1 per email after 5 emails a
     day" rule in the LNC Policy Manual at the upcoming in-person LNC
     meeting.  (I do not comment on whether this would be allowed under
     the bylaws and rules, and I would gladly recuse myself if it were
     appealed; I simply am declaring I think it would be a good idea.)
     At least if rude LNC members waste many hours of your (really, our)
     time, the LP ought to get some money out of it to build the party.
     Thank you very much for your time.
     Chuck Moulton
     Life Member and Monthly Pledger, Libertarian Party

     --

   --
   In Liberty,
   Caryn Ann Harlos
   Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
   - [8]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
   Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org

   A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
   We defend your rights
   And oppose the use of force
   Taxation is theft

References

   1. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
   2. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
   3. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015056.html
   4. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015058.html
   5. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015057.html
   6. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015066.html
   7. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015067.html
   8. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
-------------- next part --------------
   Question.  Am I missing something on EVH's emails? Or does the --- have
   a meaning I am unaware of?
   John Phillips
   Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
   Cell [1]217-412-5973

   ------ Original message------
   From: Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business
   Date: Mon, Aug 20, 2018 6:04 PM
   To: Caryn Ann Harlos;
   Cc: Elizabeth Van Horn[2];lnc-business at hq.lp.org;
   Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] LNC business list volume and email
   communication style
---
EVH

On [3]2018-08-20 18:29, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

> A Policy Manual change is needed to clear up the vote versus debate issue.  I'
m planning on putting that on the agenda
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 4:19 PM Whitney Bilyeu  wrote:
> Thanks, Chuck. I wholeheartedly agree with you. I find the LNC communication s
tandards to be a major problem. I object to moving the discussions to another pl
ace (unless we adopt a whole new forum for all comms), but I do think we can com
municate better here. I would ask for more succinct arguments, keeping vote thre
ads separate from discussion threads, ceasing hostilities, reducing unnecessary
messages to the entire group, etc...
>
> I do not consider that a male thing, by the way, as that is how I communicate,
 and what I prefer, myself. While I dare not seek to make the LNC list in my own
 image, I am happy to note that the majority of LNC members tend to contribute i
n the manner you recommend.
>
> Whitney
>
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 7:39 PM, Chuck Moulton  wrote:
> Libertarian National Committee members,
>
> I write in my personal capacity as a life member of the Libertarian Party, not
 representing any of the bodies I serve on.  I apologize in advance for the leng
th of this email... it has been brewing for a while.
>
> I'm extremely concerned by the conduct of the LNC on the business email list.
 I want to speak not on the substantive business itself, but rather on the volum
e and style of email communication.
>
> Fundamentally, I believe some LNC members misunderstand the entire purpose of
the business email list and are trying to re-conceptualize it into something com
pletely different.  You are on the business list as a deliberative body to discu
ss the business of the party and vote on motions taking action as a board.  Some
 of you appear to be using it as a 24/7 stream-of-consciousness liberty rant.
>
> The volume of email on this list is NOT NORMAL.  It is emphatically ABNORMAL.
 Some of you may not be aware of how crazy it is because you are new to the LNC.
  I invite you to look at the volume and content of email on the list from 4 or
5 years ago.  Although 1 person is the primary culprit of the ongoing problems -
- and I'm not going to be diplomatic or pull punches: that person is Caryn Ann H
arlos (who I supported in convention and voted for) --, I suspect some of the ne
wer members are following her lead to varying degrees with respect to how they c
onduct themselves.  This is a BIG problem.
>
> I completely agree with Joe Bishop-Henchmen, who recently sent the following 2
 emails:
>
> [4]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015056.html
> Efforts to work are welcome. Sending 68 emails in four days saying
> the same thing over and over, rushing to immediately respond to
> every. single. email. as if one has a duty to rise to the challenge
> for truth, justice, and the American Way, is counterproductive.
>
> I often sleep on an email before I reply to it, if it's important but
> not urgent. Most people are very careful with how they write emails,
> with meanings that take a couple of readings. If I rush to get my
> word in edgewise, I miss that and people notice that I'm not hearing
> what they're trying to say.
> [5]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015058.html
> if it's my email inbox you're cluttering up, it's not merely a
> personal matter. It's a basic courtesy that every workplace teaches.
>
> We should want this list to be a place to do business, not a Facebook
> argument thread.
> The LNC is supposed to act as a deliberative body on the LNC business list.  M
any of you are not being deliberative.  I think many of you do not want to be de
liberative.
>
> More than 90% of the emails sent to your list are completely useless. In fact,
 saying 10% of the emails are useful is extremely generous.  The reason this hap
pens is some of you lack basic email courtesy.
>
> Before discussing what sorts of emails should not be sent, I think it may help
 to step back and consider why email courtesy and the style of email communicati
on is important.
>
> First, it takes longer for 1 person to compose an email than for 1 person to r
ead that email; however, when 25 LNC members + several staff members + many othe
r interested LP members read that email, you need to multiply the individual rea
ding time for each email by the number of people reading it.  For example, if an
 email takes 5 minutes to compose and 1 minute for each individual to read and 4
0 people read that email, then a 5 minute investment by the sender costs 40 minu
tes for the recipients.  That may be all well and good if the content is useful;
 on the other hand, if the content is useless, then you have wasted a lot of tim
e.
>
> Second, when the total email volume is so high that it is not practical to rea
d all the email, recipients must skip some email.  While trying to cut out readi
ng the useless email, other list members may inadvertently miss important email.
  If the volume of email were lower and the signal to noise ratio were higher, t
hen important emails would not be overlooked.
>
> In a deliberative body, members ought to deliberate, which means "engage in lo
ng and careful consideration".  Somewhere between reading something and respondi
ng to it, your brain ought to be involved in the process. Instead of simply repl
ying to another LNC member's thoughts by robotically and immediately answering t
he question "What is my opinion on what he or she just said?", you should be giv
ing yourself several minutes (or ideally hours) to digest what was said.  You sh
ould be asking yourself "Would my response add anything to the discussion?", "Ha
ve I already said this before?", "Would someone reading my reply learn something
 new?", "Does it need to be sent to the whole list?", "Could I write this more s
uccinctly?", etc.
>
> Here are a few steps LNC members could take to use basic email courtesy and de
crease the insane list volume:
>
> 1. Eliminate all emails which simply agree or disagree without reasoning.  Abo
ut half the emails to the list are things like "I agree with X." or "+1" or "so.
 much. this." or "me too", or the opposite (disagreeing).  I believe this is the
 Facebook culture permeating and infecting email lists.  You all apparently want
 a like button.  This is completely useless and wastes everyone's time.  Instead
 I would suggest either making additional discussion points which have not been
brought up yet, or just not emailing at all.  If one absolutely must feed ego by
 hacking together a like button, I would suggest just replying to the sender dir
ectly rather than to the whole list.  Or you could create a Twitter account that
 posts a link to the LNC business post followed by a thumbs up emoji or a frowni
e face.
>
> 2. Do not post redundant discussion -- even when it is actually germane.  Some
 of you post identical talking points over and over and over again.  We get your
 position.  Your redundancy is not winning you any converts; it is just annoying
 people.  If you want to add to the discussion, then you should make points you
have not brought up before.
>
> 3. Reply directly to people rather than to the whole list.  Frequently LNC mem
bers ask the LNC for help on some task and their colleagues oblige.  At least 75
% of the time they could just email a reply directly rather than CCing the rest
of the LNC.  Whenever you send an email, you should be asking yourself whether i
t is actually useful information for everybody or just targeted at one person.
>
> 4. Trim your emails.  Some LNC members complained in the past about 300 links
at the bottom of the email.  This only happens because most of you copy the last
 50 years of discussion every single email.  Most of what you haphazardly quote
is completely irrelevant.  In more than half of the emails you send, you are onl
y addressing a single sentence or paragraph of the last email.  Cut out the rest
.  Only quote what you are actually replying to.  That makes email discussion a
lot easier to follow -- and has the added benefit of taking less space and avoid
ing 300 links as garbage.  I would suggest emailing on actual computers rather t
han phones, but note even phones allow quoting: on an iPhone highlight 1 sentenc
e, then click the reply button.
>
> 5. Think before you send.  In most cases it is possible (and advisable) to sit
 on an email for 24 hours.  If a day is too long, then try waiting 4 hours.  Wai
ting can be calming, make your reply more logical, and help you avoid writing th
ings which are misinterpreted.  I've found when I sit on an email for 24 hours,
75% of the time I decide not to send it. The other 25% of the time, I make sever
al edits which fix spelling or grammar errors, make my point clearer, tone it do
wn, or avoid misinterpretation.
>
> 6. Consolidate emails.  When I am following an email discussion, sometimes I s
ee 4 different points by 4 different people on the same topic which I want to ad
dress.  Instead of sending 4 emails, I send one email which quotes each of them
and replies appropriately.  This saves on email volume and also helps you compos
e your thoughts better and be less redundant.
>
> 7. Change the subject line when the thread shifts focus.  This can make the di
scussion easier to follow rather than having to sift through emails with complet
ely unrelated subjects.
>
> 8. Check your spelling, grammar, and usage.  I cringe every time I read emails
 misusing "its" and "it's", "your" and "you're", etc.  We are the third largest
political party in the United States... when our national committee writes unpro
fessionally it reflects poorly on the organization.  (Many people use bad spelli
ng, grammar, and usage as a proxy to infer stupidity or poor education.)  This i
s especially important with respect to language on which you vote.
>
> 9. If you are feeling hotheaded or think something you are saying may be misin
terpreted, then get a second opinion before sending it.  Ask your spouse or frie
nd to read over your email.
>
> 10. Respect the opinions of others.  It is incredibly rude to browbeat a colle
ague because you don't like his or her vote.  The vote speaks for itself.  Allow
 others to disagree in peace.  If you actually believe you can change someone's
mind, it would be more respectful to pick up the phone and call your colleague t
o have a real discussion (i.e., actively listen seeing where he is coming from a
nd how you can change his mind, instead of just talking at him) rather than publ
icly lambasting him for the vote.
>
> 11. You do not need to reply to everything.  Don't worry: we probably already
know your opinion without you replying anyway.  Failing to respond to an email d
oes not mean you concede a debate point.  Also, your audience will not assume yo
u are sleeping at the wheel.  If just two people on a list believe they must res
pond to every email, then that by definition will create an infinite number of e
mails.
>
> 12. Concision is better than verbosity.  Sometimes it takes longer to write a
short message than a long message; however, your colleagues will appreciate the
former.  As FDR once said: "Be sincere, be brief, be seated."
>
> 13. Remember the audience and the purpose of the list.  If you wouldn't say so
mething in a LNC meeting, you probably shouldn't say it on the LNC business list
.
>
> I believe if all LNC members mostly followed those bits of basic email courtes
y, the volume of the list would be dramatically reduced without sacrificing any
of the actual discussion.
>
> I see the LNC is now discussing moving discussion to phpBB.  That is a TERRIBL
E idea.  The only reason this list is dysfunctional in the first place is severa
l members -- particularly Caryn Ann Harlos -- are not following basic email cour
tesy.  Moving all or part of the discussion to another forum would just make tha
t discussion even harder to follow. Additionally, it would further exacerbate th
e volume problem.  The very people causing the problem in the first place are th
ose who want to move to a different venue.  They want to do this because other m
edia are more conducive to what they actually want: a 24/7 stream-of-consciousne
ss liberty rant.  Email is more deliberative than phpBB.  phpBB is more delibera
tive than Slack.  Slack is more deliberative than Facebook. Facebook is more del
iberative than texting.  The LNC should be a deliberative group.
>
> If some members of the LNC are unable to act with a modicum of courtesy, there
 is a less restrictive alternative than moving the substantive discussion to a m
edium less suited to that purpose.  Instead the LNC could create a second list c
alled (for example) "useless-drivel" and LNC members could send their extra mess
ages to that list.
>
> I have seen some LNC members defend the practice of subjecting others to their
 pollution.  Recently, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> [6]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015057.html
> Not everyone communicates the same way Joe, and we all have to be
> tolerant of that.
>
> [...]
>
> Your way is not my way. My way is not your way. And that's okay.
> [7]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015066.html
> Joe with all due respect you signed up to part of a group of diverse
> people, not to dictate to them that they must conform to your
> communication style. I have to tell you that I have zero intention of
> changing my practice
> [8]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015067.html
> PS: I counted them. It wasn't 68. It was in the 40s because I
> interact with each person's comments. Do people post to the list not
> to get a response?? I am sorry, but it is NOT unreasonable to have
> that many emails when someone is very very active in a group of 17
> people. [...] And like it or not, dealing with this email list is
> part of the job. If we met more often, there would be less emails. As
> I say periodically, the fact that we do not meet monthly is
> ridiculous to me.
> First, she says she must "interact with each person's comments", which is ridi
culous.  This is the Facebook culture of reply to everything or you concede the
debate.
>
> Second, she says dealing with this email list is part of the job.  The right t
o talk does not imply a right to be heard.  Time is a scarce commodity and every
one sensibly makes efficient use of his or or time through filtering.  Chair Sar
wark, regional representative Lark, and at-large member Bishop-Henchman do not w
rite the business list often, but when they do their emails are well-reasoned an
d people read them. In contrast, some LNC members have suggested that Ms. Harlos
's messages go directly into the trash or their spam folder.  If I were on the L
NC, I would strongly consider setting up such an email filter.  If the audience
isn't listening, that's the fault of the speaker, not the audience.  Be more jud
icious with your emails and people will not skip or skim them.
>
> Third, not all communication styles are okay.  A bulk email marketer could say
 spamming people with unsolicited email is his communication style.  Someone els
e could say profanity laden rants are his communication style.  Neither would be
 acceptable in ordinary society or in the workplace.  When you send emails to a
list read by 30-40 people, your communication style imposes costs on others.  Ig
noring those costs displays a lack of empathy (bordering on autism).  When someo
ne sends hundreds of useless emails wasting colleagues' time, it would be charit
able to call such behavior rude; I would call it abusive.
>
> This is going to be a long and frustrating LNC term if some of you continue di
srespecting your colleagues.  It doesn't have to be that way.  The LNC can be (a
nd has been) collegial.
>
> With all that said, I advocate the following actions:
>
> 1. I ask the LNC not to move substantive discussion to a different communicati
on medium than the LNC business email list.  As an interested LP member, I would
 like to continue to follow such discussion.
>
> 2. I implore LNC members to individually consider the costs their communicatio
n styles impose on others, and to individually make an effort to be more respect
ful to their LNC colleagues (and to interested observers) by following basic ema
il courtesy.
>
> 3. If the list volume continues to be insane, I request that the LNC formally
adopt the Bishop-Henchman "$1 per email after 5 emails a day" rule in the LNC Po
licy Manual at the upcoming in-person LNC meeting.  (I do not comment on whether
 this would be allowed under the bylaws and rules, and I would gladly recuse mys
elf if it were appealed; I simply am declaring I think it would be a good idea.)
  At least if rude LNC members waste many hours of your (really, our) time, the
LP ought to get some money out of it to build the party.
>
> Thank you very much for your time.
>
> Chuck Moulton
> Life Member and Monthly Pledger, Libertarian Party
 --

--

IN LIBERTY,
CARYN ANN HARLOS
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary -
[9]Caryn.Ann.[10] Harlos at LP.org or[11] Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[12] LPedia at LP.org

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
_We defend your rights_
_And oppose the use of force_
_Taxation is theft_
   ---
   EVH

   On [13]2018-08-20 18:29, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

   A Policy Manual change is needed to clear up the vote versus debate
   issue.  I'm planning on putting that on the agenda



   -Caryn Ann





   On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 4:19 PM Whitney Bilyeu
   <[1[14]]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org> wrote:

   Thanks, Chuck. I wholeheartedly agree with you. I find the LNC
   communication standards to be a major problem. I object to moving the
   discussions to another place (unless we adopt a whole new forum for all
   comms), but I do think we can communicate better here. I would ask for
   more succinct arguments, keeping vote threads separate from discussion
   threads, ceasing hostilities, reducing unnecessary messages to the
   entire group, etc...

   I do not consider that a male thing, by the way, as that is how I
   communicate, and what I prefer, myself. While I dare not seek to make
   the LNC list in my own image, I am happy to note that the majority of
   LNC members tend to contribute in the manner you recommend.


   Whitney



   On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 7:39 PM, Chuck Moulton <[2[15]]chuck at moulton.org>
   wrote:

     Libertarian National Committee members,
     I write in my personal capacity as a life member of the Libertarian
     Party, not representing any of the bodies I serve on.  I apologize
     in advance for the length of this email... it has been brewing for a
     while.
     I'm extremely concerned by the conduct of the LNC on the business
     email list.  I want to speak not on the substantive business itself,
     but rather on the volume and style of email communication.
     Fundamentally, I believe some LNC members misunderstand the entire
     purpose of the business email list and are trying to
     re-conceptualize it into something completely different.  You are on
     the business list as a deliberative body to discuss the business of
     the party and vote on motions taking action as a board.  Some of you
     appear to be using it as a 24/7 stream-of-consciousness liberty
     rant.
     The volume of email on this list is NOT NORMAL.  It is emphatically
     ABNORMAL.  Some of you may not be aware of how crazy it is because
     you are new to the LNC.  I invite you to look at the volume and
     content of email on the list from 4 or 5 years ago.  Although 1
     person is the primary culprit of the ongoing problems -- and I'm not
     going to be diplomatic or pull punches: that person is Caryn Ann
     Harlos (who I supported in convention and voted for) --, I suspect
     some of the newer members are following her lead to varying degrees
     with respect to how they conduct themselves.  This is a BIG problem.
     I completely agree with Joe Bishop-Henchmen, who recently sent the
     following 2 emails:
     [3][16]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015056.html

     Efforts to work are welcome. Sending 68 emails in four days saying
     the same thing over and over, rushing to immediately respond to
     every. single. email. as if one has a duty to rise to the challenge
     for truth, justice, and the American Way, is counterproductive.
     I often sleep on an email before I reply to it, if it's important
     but
     not urgent. Most people are very careful with how they write emails,
     with meanings that take a couple of readings. If I rush to get my
     word in edgewise, I miss that and people notice that I'm not hearing
     what they're trying to say.

     [4][17]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015058.html

     if it's my email inbox you're cluttering up, it's not merely a
     personal matter. It's a basic courtesy that every workplace teaches.
     We should want this list to be a place to do business, not a
     Facebook
     argument thread.

     The LNC is supposed to act as a deliberative body on the LNC
     business list.  Many of you are not being deliberative.  I think
     many of you do not want to be deliberative.
     More than 90% of the emails sent to your list are completely
     useless. In fact, saying 10% of the emails are useful is extremely
     generous.  The reason this happens is some of you lack basic email
     courtesy.
     Before discussing what sorts of emails should not be sent, I think
     it may help to step back and consider why email courtesy and the
     style of email communication is important.
     First, it takes longer for 1 person to compose an email than for 1
     person to read that email; however, when 25 LNC members + several
     staff members + many other interested LP members read that email,
     you need to multiply the individual reading time for each email by
     the number of people reading it.  For example, if an email takes 5
     minutes to compose and 1 minute for each individual to read and 40
     people read that email, then a 5 minute investment by the sender
     costs 40 minutes for the recipients.  That may be all well and good
     if the content is useful; on the other hand, if the content is
     useless, then you have wasted a lot of time.
     Second, when the total email volume is so high that it is not
     practical to read all the email, recipients must skip some email.
     While trying to cut out reading the useless email, other list
     members may inadvertently miss important email.  If the volume of
     email were lower and the signal to noise ratio were higher, then
     important emails would not be overlooked.
     In a deliberative body, members ought to deliberate, which means
     "engage in long and careful consideration".  Somewhere between
     reading something and responding to it, your brain ought to be
     involved in the process. Instead of simply replying to another LNC
     member's thoughts by robotically and immediately answering the
     question "What is my opinion on what he or she just said?", you
     should be giving yourself several minutes (or ideally hours) to
     digest what was said.  You should be asking yourself "Would my
     response add anything to the discussion?", "Have I already said this
     before?", "Would someone reading my reply learn something new?",
     "Does it need to be sent to the whole list?", "Could I write this
     more succinctly?", etc.
     Here are a few steps LNC members could take to use basic email
     courtesy and decrease the insane list volume:
     1. Eliminate all emails which simply agree or disagree without
     reasoning.  About half the emails to the list are things like "I
     agree with X." or "+1" or "so. much. this." or "me too", or the
     opposite (disagreeing).  I believe this is the Facebook culture
     permeating and infecting email lists.  You all apparently want a
     like button.  This is completely useless and wastes everyone's
     time.  Instead I would suggest either making additional discussion
     points which have not been brought up yet, or just not emailing at
     all.  If one absolutely must feed ego by hacking together a like
     button, I would suggest just replying to the sender directly rather
     than to the whole list.  Or you could create a Twitter account that
     posts a link to the LNC business post followed by a thumbs up emoji
     or a frownie face.
     2. Do not post redundant discussion -- even when it is actually
     germane.  Some of you post identical talking points over and over
     and over again.  We get your position.  Your redundancy is not
     winning you any converts; it is just annoying people.  If you want
     to add to the discussion, then you should make points you have not
     brought up before.
     3. Reply directly to people rather than to the whole list.
     Frequently LNC members ask the LNC for help on some task and their
     colleagues oblige.  At least 75% of the time they could just email a
     reply directly rather than CCing the rest of the LNC.  Whenever you
     send an email, you should be asking yourself whether it is actually
     useful information for everybody or just targeted at one person.
     4. Trim your emails.  Some LNC members complained in the past about
     300 links at the bottom of the email.  This only happens because
     most of you copy the last 50 years of discussion every single
     email.  Most of what you haphazardly quote is completely
     irrelevant.  In more than half of the emails you send, you are only
     addressing a single sentence or paragraph of the last email.  Cut
     out the rest.  Only quote what you are actually replying to.  That
     makes email discussion a lot easier to follow -- and has the added
     benefit of taking less space and avoiding 300 links as garbage.  I
     would suggest emailing on actual computers rather than phones, but
     note even phones allow quoting: on an iPhone highlight 1 sentence,
     then click the reply button.
     5. Think before you send.  In most cases it is possible (and
     advisable) to sit on an email for 24 hours.  If a day is too long,
     then try waiting 4 hours.  Waiting can be calming, make your reply
     more logical, and help you avoid writing things which are
     misinterpreted.  I've found when I sit on an email for 24 hours, 75%
     of the time I decide not to send it. The other 25% of the time, I
     make several edits which fix spelling or grammar errors, make my
     point clearer, tone it down, or avoid misinterpretation.
     6. Consolidate emails.  When I am following an email discussion,
     sometimes I see 4 different points by 4 different people on the same
     topic which I want to address.  Instead of sending 4 emails, I send
     one email which quotes each of them and replies appropriately.  This
     saves on email volume and also helps you compose your thoughts
     better and be less redundant.
     7. Change the subject line when the thread shifts focus.  This can
     make the discussion easier to follow rather than having to sift
     through emails with completely unrelated subjects.
     8. Check your spelling, grammar, and usage.  I cringe every time I
     read emails misusing "its" and "it's", "your" and "you're", etc.  We
     are the third largest political party in the United States... when
     our national committee writes unprofessionally it reflects poorly on
     the organization.  (Many people use bad spelling, grammar, and usage
     as a proxy to infer stupidity or poor education.)  This is
     especially important with respect to language on which you vote.
     9. If you are feeling hotheaded or think something you are saying
     may be misinterpreted, then get a second opinion before sending it.
     Ask your spouse or friend to read over your email.
     10. Respect the opinions of others.  It is incredibly rude to
     browbeat a colleague because you don't like his or her vote.  The
     vote speaks for itself.  Allow others to disagree in peace.  If you
     actually believe you can change someone's mind, it would be more
     respectful to pick up the phone and call your colleague to have a
     real discussion (i.e., actively listen seeing where he is coming
     from and how you can change his mind, instead of just talking at
     him) rather than publicly lambasting him for the vote.
     11. You do not need to reply to everything.  Don't worry: we
     probably already know your opinion without you replying anyway.
     Failing to respond to an email does not mean you concede a debate
     point.  Also, your audience will not assume you are sleeping at the
     wheel.  If just two people on a list believe they must respond to
     every email, then that by definition will create an infinite number
     of emails.
     12. Concision is better than verbosity.  Sometimes it takes longer
     to write a short message than a long message; however, your
     colleagues will appreciate the former.  As FDR once said: "Be
     sincere, be brief, be seated."
     13. Remember the audience and the purpose of the list.  If you
     wouldn't say something in a LNC meeting, you probably shouldn't say
     it on the LNC business list.
     I believe if all LNC members mostly followed those bits of basic
     email courtesy, the volume of the list would be dramatically reduced
     without sacrificing any of the actual discussion.
     I see the LNC is now discussing moving discussion to phpBB.  That is
     a TERRIBLE idea.  The only reason this list is dysfunctional in the
     first place is several members -- particularly Caryn Ann Harlos --
     are not following basic email courtesy.  Moving all or part of the
     discussion to another forum would just make that discussion even
     harder to follow. Additionally, it would further exacerbate the
     volume problem.  The very people causing the problem in the first
     place are those who want to move to a different venue.  They want to
     do this because other media are more conducive to what they actually
     want: a 24/7 stream-of-consciousness liberty rant.  Email is more
     deliberative than phpBB.  phpBB is more deliberative than Slack.
     Slack is more deliberative than Facebook. Facebook is more
     deliberative than texting.  The LNC should be a deliberative group.
     If some members of the LNC are unable to act with a modicum of
     courtesy, there is a less restrictive alternative than moving the
     substantive discussion to a medium less suited to that purpose.
     Instead the LNC could create a second list called (for example)
     "useless-drivel" and LNC members could send their extra messages to
     that list.
     I have seen some LNC members defend the practice of subjecting
     others to their pollution.  Recently, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
     [5][18]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015057.html

     Not everyone communicates the same way Joe, and we all have to be
     tolerant of that.
     [...]
     Your way is not my way. My way is not your way. And that's okay.

     [6][19]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015066.html

     Joe with all due respect you signed up to part of a group of diverse
     people, not to dictate to them that they must conform to your
     communication style. I have to tell you that I have zero intention
     of
     changing my practice

     [7][20]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015067.html

     PS: I counted them. It wasn't 68. It was in the 40s because I
     interact with each person's comments. Do people post to the list not
     to get a response?? I am sorry, but it is NOT unreasonable to have
     that many emails when someone is very very active in a group of 17
     people. [...] And like it or not, dealing with this email list is
     part of the job. If we met more often, there would be less emails.
     As
     I say periodically, the fact that we do not meet monthly is
     ridiculous to me.

     First, she says she must "interact with each person's comments",
     which is ridiculous.  This is the Facebook culture of reply to
     everything or you concede the debate.
     Second, she says dealing with this email list is part of the job.
     The right to talk does not imply a right to be heard.  Time is a
     scarce commodity and everyone sensibly makes efficient use of his or
     or time through filtering.  Chair Sarwark, regional representative
     Lark, and at-large member Bishop-Henchman do not write the business
     list often, but when they do their emails are well-reasoned and
     people read them. In contrast, some LNC members have suggested that
     Ms. Harlos's messages go directly into the trash or their spam
     folder.  If I were on the LNC, I would strongly consider setting up
     such an email filter.  If the audience isn't listening, that's the
     fault of the speaker, not the audience.  Be more judicious with your
     emails and people will not skip or skim them.
     Third, not all communication styles are okay.  A bulk email marketer
     could say spamming people with unsolicited email is his
     communication style.  Someone else could say profanity laden rants
     are his communication style.  Neither would be acceptable in
     ordinary society or in the workplace.  When you send emails to a
     list read by 30-40 people, your communication style imposes costs on
     others.  Ignoring those costs displays a lack of empathy (bordering
     on autism).  When someone sends hundreds of useless emails wasting
     colleagues' time, it would be charitable to call such behavior rude;
     I would call it abusive.
     This is going to be a long and frustrating LNC term if some of you
     continue disrespecting your colleagues.  It doesn't have to be that
     way.  The LNC can be (and has been) collegial.
     With all that said, I advocate the following actions:
     1. I ask the LNC not to move substantive discussion to a different
     communication medium than the LNC business email list.  As an
     interested LP member, I would like to continue to follow such
     discussion.
     2. I implore LNC members to individually consider the costs their
     communication styles impose on others, and to individually make an
     effort to be more respectful to their LNC colleagues (and to
     interested observers) by following basic email courtesy.
     3. If the list volume continues to be insane, I request that the LNC
     formally adopt the Bishop-Henchman "$1 per email after 5 emails a
     day" rule in the LNC Policy Manual at the upcoming in-person LNC
     meeting.  (I do not comment on whether this would be allowed under
     the bylaws and rules, and I would gladly recuse myself if it were
     appealed; I simply am declaring I think it would be a good idea.)
     At least if rude LNC members waste many hours of your (really, our)
     time, the LP ought to get some money out of it to build the party.
     Thank you very much for your time.
     Chuck Moulton
     Life Member and Monthly Pledger, Libertarian Party

     --

   --
   In Liberty,
   Caryn Ann Harlos
   Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
   - [8][21]Caryn.Ann.[22] Harlos at LP.org or[23] Secretary at LP.org.
   Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[24] LPedia at LP.org

   A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
   We defend your rights
   And oppose the use of force
   Taxation is theft

References

   1. mailto[25]:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
   2. mailto[26]:chuck at moulton.org
   3. [27]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015056.html
   4. [28]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015058.html
   5. [29]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015057.html
   6. [30]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015066.html
   7. [31]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015067.html
   8. mailto[32]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

References

   1. tel:217-412-5973
   2. mailto:;lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   3. tel:2018-08-20 18
   4. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015056.html
   5. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015058.html
   6. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015057.html
   7. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015066.html
   8. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015067.html
   9. http://Caryn.An/
  10. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
  11. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
  12. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
  13. tel:2018-08-20 18
  14. mailto:]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
  15. mailto:]chuck at moulton.org
  16. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015056.html
  17. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015058.html
  18. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015057.html
  19. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015066.html
  20. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015067.html
  21. http://Caryn.An/
  22. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
  23. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
  24. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
  25. mailto::whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
  26. mailto::chuck at moulton.org
  27. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015056.html
  28. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015058.html
  29. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015057.html
  30. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015066.html
  31. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015067.html
  32. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list