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

[Elizabeth Van Horn]

Chuck Moulton, thank you for taking the time to write and offer 
suggestions to the LNC.

I hadn't given the idea of phpBB much thought, and appreciate your 
input.

Kind regards,
EVH

---
Elizabeth Van Horn


On 2018-08-19 20:39, 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