[Lnc-business] Hubbub email chain length for 134-member LNC

[Elizabeth Van Horn]

 I definitely think there is cause. -Caryn Ann

Good! 

---
Elizabeth Van Horn 

On 2018-01-15 00:52, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

> (and FWIW I never said I didn't like it when intentions were interpreted.  It is inevitable.  I said I didn't like it when one post is taken out of context and interpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what it was saying which is not charitable in light of the dozens of other posts saying the opposite).  Intentions are important.  I expect people will evaluate mine.  My call was a call to charity in context.  I have been one of the most outspoken critics of Arvin so it just was not charitable to take one post and say I thought there was no cause.  I definitely think there is cause. 
> 
> -Caryn Ann 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 10:49 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> 
> With a rep per state my other issues would be resolved.  Small states would be protected (there is another issue, but not that one) 
> 
> There is still an issue with scale, but not the other issues, and it is not what the Bylaws committee is proposing (and something similar to your idea I think was proposed before - don't know the history etc but can find out). 
> 
> And my other comment is NOT about intention.  It is about inevitable result REGARDLESS of intention. I have pretty consistently said that.  It is what would happen.  As night follows day. 
> 
> -Caryn Ann 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 10:39 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
> 
> *laughing out loud!*    I meant 50 one per state.  See?  It's even better!   
> 
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
> 
> On 2018-01-15 00:37, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: 
> How is one per state = 100? 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 10:25 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
> I think expanding to one representative per state, for a total of 100 members, would be a plus.  (I know that's not what the bylaws people want.)
> 
> Because, it would be easier to get feedback from the members.  The actual people we represent.
> 
> Then some posting rules could be in place, such as no burdening the rest of the LNC with personal rambles and dreams.
> 
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn 
> 
> On 2018-01-15 00:17, david.demarest at lp.org wrote:
> 
> Can you imagine the length of this bruhaha email chain if the bylaws
> committee proposal to expand the the LNC to 134 members was already in
> place. It boggles the imagination.
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [1] _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [1]

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [1] 
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [1]

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 

Links:
------
[1] http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180115/b94c28ce/attachment-0002.html>