[Lnc-business] update on timing
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Wed Jul 11 05:15:10 EDT 2018
Hi Alicia,
== I can't help but notice that you were fine with my tabulation of the
Secretary's race, but then you were happier with the outcome of that
one. You're not rattling the cages about that, only about the one in
which you seem to be unhappy with the result. ==
I am not unhappy with the result. I am unhappy with the way it was
handled. Please don't make accusations or assumptions. I hope all of the
races are audited and anyone in those races should not be involved with
that. I am sure you agree that margins of less than 20 votes are
significantly different than margins of 150 votes.
== You have recklessly asserted that "a region 1 candidate was pretty
screwed by this whole process", and that carries some pretty unfair
implications.==
The implications are that the At-Large candidates, which include a region 1
candidate, were not proper. I have asserted that from the beginning.
== You keep complaining that I'm not done yet, as though heckling the person
doing the work will make it go faster. ===
Alicia, now you are going overboard. I am entitled to ask, and that is not
heckling. I already begged your forgiveness if the intent came off
differently but now you are attacking me. I am not complaining you are not
done. I am asking for a timeframe. That is all. You could take three
months and I think that is reasonable.
== Your offer to "assist" is not practical, as any means for that to happen
would necessarily make it take longer, and thus it contradicts your other
complaint that it isn't happening fast enough.==
First I never complained it is not happening fast enough. And second, it
would seem desirable for me to assist to learn what you are doing. That
is part of a standard hand-off practice.
== You keep asking for a "timeline". I previously informed you when I'd get
back home so I could start on it. After my first day of working on t, I
updated on the substantial progress I made, indicated what was left to do,
and assured you that it is my top priority to complete as soon as I could.
Yet you're acting as though I have told you nothing and have done nothing
so far. ==
I am getting asked and asked and asked by members for a timeline. I think
you are reading into things that are not there. I have no doubt that you
have done an immense amount. I am not sure where this is coming from, but
it is not accurate.
==In spite of me describing my progress and approaching the finishing line,
you're portraying this as though the people requesting
information are being "ignored".==
The Utah Chair would like a timeline. He feels ignored.
And I don't think a timeline is unreasonable - such as "Dr. Buchman you can
expect that in two weeks."
That is all I am asking. I think this going on the attack here is not
appropriate. If *I* have one complaint (that is not transmitting a
complaint from a member) it would be that I should be included on this
process. That is part of training and handoff. And yes that may mean
things will take a little bit longer and that can be blamed totally on me.
There is no need to go on the attack. I am not attacking you. I don't
attack you. I have only the utmost respect and admiration for your skills
as I have said numerous times which is one reason I do want to be included
in the process for training purposes.
I am not attacking you. Please stop attacking me. None of this is
productive. I already apologized if the tone of other requests came off
wrong. Please accept that.
However, a timeline is not unreasonable and I am requesting that on behalf
of members who keep asking me. A request that people involved in an
election not be involved in the recount is not unreasonable, in fact, I am
rather shocked that is not standard practice so I am requesting an
independent audit of any race in which an auditor was also a candidate We
would expect this of other organizations.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:22 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Caryn Ann,
> I can't help but notice that you were fine with my tabulation of the
> Secretary's race, but then you were happier with the outcome of that
> one. You're not rattling the cages about that, only about the one in
> which you seem to be unhappy with the result. You have recklessly
> asserted that "a region 1 candidate was pretty screwed by this whole
> process", and that carries some pretty unfair implications.
> You keep complaining that I'm not done yet, as though heckling the
> person doing the work will make it go faster. Your offer to "assist"
> is not practical, as any means for that to happen would necessarily
> make it take longer, and thus it contradicts your other complaint that
> it isn't happening fast enough.
> You keep asking for a "timeline". I previously informed you when I'd
> get back home so I could start on it. After my first day of working on
> it, I updated on the substantial progress I made, indicated what was
> left to do, and assured you that it is my top priority to complete as
> soon as I could. Yet you're acting as though I have told you nothing
> and have done nothing so far. Today I finished the dozen states that I
> didn't get to yesterday. Next I need to write up my notes and scan
> some supporting documents. That's where things are, and it's where
> I'll pick up later today.
> In spite of me describing my progress and approaching the finishing
> line, you're portraying this as though the people requesting
> information are being "ignored". That's just not a rational
> description of the situation.
> All of this just makes me think that this whole conversation is more
> about generating noise than anything else. Regardless, I'll finish the
> task soon and then move on to the rest of my to-do list.
> -Alicia
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:32 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
> <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> The At-Large results shouldn’t be a one-person audit in this
> case.
> And no one who ran should conduct it.
> I continue to offer to assist.
> There was no intent to have an inappropriate tone and if anything
> presented that way you have my abject apology.
> What is being asked - by several state Chairs - is a timeline. I
> don’t
> think that is unreasonable. They feel like they are being
> ignored.
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:24 PM Richard Longstreth via
> Lnc-business
> <[1][2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Thank you for your work Alicia. I appreciate your hasty
> efforts
> and
> dedication in getting these items available as soon as you
> can.
> Richard
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 05:09 Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
>
> <[1][2][3]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Ms. Harlos,
> I indicated before that I would be traveling with a full
> schedule
> and
> only sporadic internet access, and would not return to my
> more
> normal
> routine until Monday. I got home from my trip Sunday
> night,
> and
> starting in the wee hours of Monday morning you started
> the
> "Are
> we
> there yet?" messages about the At-Large details. Then
> throughout
> the
> day it became rather unfair characterizations that I was
> saying
> "well,
> whenever" as though I'm blowing it off. That tone is not
> warranted nor
> appreciated.
> Yes, the state-by-state numbers that add up to the totals
> I
> sent
> do
> exist, but providing that will not be the end of the
> story.
> If
> all I
> send is that, immediately the questions will begin about
> the
> instances
> where those numbers vary from the delegation tally sheets
> because
> we
> caught and corrected errors. Then while I am researching
> to
> answer
> those questions, we all know the internet gossip will get
> silly,
> with
> people not being careful to say only things they know to
> be
> true
> while
> waiting on answers to the questions.
> My usual practice is to do the post-convention audit as
> part
> of
> building the convention minutes, which is near the end of
> my
> to-do list
> after having updated other minutes with timing deadlines,
> policy,
> bylaws, platform, etc. Instead, so I can answer most
> questions
> on
> at-large before they are asked, because there was a very
> close
> outcome
> that involves me, I've prioritized the audit of the
> At-Large
> race
> to do
> it mostly first...though I did also send updated minutes
> to
> meet
> a
> posting deadline and update the Policy Manual earlier.
> When I provide the state-by-state numbers, I'll scan the
> state
> tally
> sheets, plus provide my notes about what's different
> between
> the
> two
> and why so that those questions can be addressed
> simultaneously
> in one
> message, rather than being spread out in different places
> at
> different
> times where people might miss some of it.
> You're well aware of how long it took a team of 10 people
> to
> go
> through
> the Judicial Committee votes after the LNC meeting on July
> 2nd?
> You
> can deduce from that how long it takes one person to give
> the
> At-Large
> the second-pass, fine-tooth-comb treatment. Today I spent
> a
> LARGE
> number of hours on the project. I think I have about a
> dozen
> states
> left to go, plus tally sheet scanning and writing up my
> notes.
> It
> takes only a few seconds for you to ask, "Are we there
> yet?", but
> it
> takes a lot longer to actually accomplish it.
> I didn't have the crystal ball at the start of the project
> to
> know
> precisely how long I would get to work on it today, or how
> long
> it
> would take to complete. Rather than emailing the LNC
> every
> 30
> minutes,
> (and I haven't even taken time to comment on the two email
> ballots yet,
> though I have a bit to say there), I'm focusing on just
> getting
> this
> task done so I can move on to the next. It is a high
> priority on
> my
> list, and when I finish it, I'll send it.
> To others who have been asking about the rest of my to-do
> list,
> I'm
> doing this project first. In the case of adopted
> resolutions,
> please
> recall that our convention forges ahead and adopts all
> sorts
> of
> things
> from the floor while the Secretary is trying to tally
> election
> results. I suppose I should be flattered that some
> believe
> I can
> document those fully on the fly while I'm simultaneously
> aggregating
> election results, and have completed minutes immediately
> following
> adjournment, but that's a bit overly optimistic. I am a
> human
> who is
> constrained by the laws of time and space. I could only
> make
> sparse
> notes about the nature of other proceedings while I was
> working
> on
> elections, and when I start building the convention
> minutes,
> I'll
> have
> to go back and review the recordings to verify that I
> caught
> all
> the
> relevant details. I have a large envelope of lots of
> things
> that
> were
> submitted in writing, so I'll fish out what was actually
> voted
> on,
> verify that the written submission matches what the
> delegates
> were told
> they were voting on, etc.
> Again, all these items are in the queue, and I'll get to
> them all
> as
> soon as I reasonably can now that I am back at home with
> my
> usual
> workspace, but it is unreasonable to expect it to all
> happen
> instantaneously.
> -Alicia
>
> References
> 1. mailto:[3][4]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> - [4]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:[5]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 2. mailto:[6]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 3. mailto:[7]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 4. mailto:[8]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 4. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 5. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 6. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 7. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 8. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
--
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <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*
-------------- next part --------------
Hi Alicia,
== I can't help but notice that you were fine with my tabulation of
the
Secretary's race, but then you were happier with the outcome of that
one. You're not rattling the cages about that, only about the one
in
which you seem to be unhappy with the result. ==
I am not unhappy with the result. I am unhappy with the way it was
handled. Please don't make accusations or assumptions. I hope all of
the races are audited and anyone in those races should not be involved
with that. I am sure you agree that margins of less than 20 votes are
significantly different than margins of 150 votes.
== You have recklessly asserted that "a region 1 candidate was pretty
screwed by this whole process", and that carries some pretty unfair
implications.==
The implications are that the At-Large candidates, which include a
region 1 candidate, were not proper. I have asserted that from the
beginning.
== You keep complaining that I'm not done yet, as though heckling
the person doing the work will make it go faster. ===
Alicia, now you are going overboard. I am entitled to ask, and that is
not heckling. I already begged your forgiveness if the intent came off
differently but now you are attacking me. I am not complaining you are
not done. I am asking for a timeframe. That is all. You could take
three months and I think that is reasonable.
== Your offer to "assist" is not practical, as any means for that to
happen would necessarily make it take longer, and thus it contradicts
your other complaint that it isn't happening fast enough.==
First I never complained it is not happening fast enough. And second,
it would seem desirable for me to assist to learn what you are doing.
That is part of a standard hand-off practice.
== You keep asking for a "timeline". I previously informed you when
I'd get back home so I could start on it. After my first day of
working on t, I updated on the substantial progress I made, indicated
what was left to do, and assured you that it is my top priority to
complete as soon as I could. Yet you're acting as though I have told
you nothing and have done nothing so far. ==
I am getting asked and asked and asked by members for a timeline. I
think you are reading into things that are not there. I have no doubt
that you have done an immense amount. I am not sure where this is
coming from, but it is not accurate.
==In spite of me describing my progress and approaching the finishing
line, you're portraying this as though the people requesting
information are being "ignored".==
The Utah Chair would like a timeline. He feels ignored.
And I don't think a timeline is unreasonable - such as "Dr. Buchman you
can expect that in two weeks."
That is all I am asking. I think this going on the attack here is not
appropriate. If *I* have one complaint (that is not transmitting a
complaint from a member) it would be that I should be included on this
process. That is part of training and handoff. And yes that may mean
things will take a little bit longer and that can be blamed totally on
me.
There is no need to go on the attack. I am not attacking you. I don't
attack you. I have only the utmost respect and admiration for your
skills as I have said numerous times which is one reason I do want to
be included in the process for training purposes.
I am not attacking you. Please stop attacking me. None of this is
productive. I already apologized if the tone of other requests came
off wrong. Please accept that.
However, a timeline is not unreasonable and I am requesting that on
behalf of members who keep asking me. A request that people involved
in an election not be involved in the recount is not unreasonable, in
fact, I am rather shocked that is not standard practice so I am
requesting an independent audit of any race in which an auditor was
also a candidate We would expect this of other organizations.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:22 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
<[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Caryn Ann,
I can't help but notice that you were fine with my tabulation of
the
Secretary's race, but then you were happier with the outcome of
that
one. You're not rattling the cages about that, only about the
one in
which you seem to be unhappy with the result. You have
recklessly
asserted that "a region 1 candidate was pretty screwed by this
whole
process", and that carries some pretty unfair implications.
You keep complaining that I'm not done yet, as though heckling
the
person doing the work will make it go faster. Your offer to
"assist"
is not practical, as any means for that to happen would
necessarily
make it take longer, and thus it contradicts your other complaint
that
it isn't happening fast enough.
You keep asking for a "timeline". I previously informed you when
I'd
get back home so I could start on it. After my first day of
working on
it, I updated on the substantial progress I made, indicated what
was
left to do, and assured you that it is my top priority to
complete as
soon as I could. Yet you're acting as though I have told you
nothing
and have done nothing so far. Today I finished the dozen states
that I
didn't get to yesterday. Next I need to write up my notes and
scan
some supporting documents. That's where things are, and it's
where
I'll pick up later today.
In spite of me describing my progress and approaching the
finishing
line, you're portraying this as though the people requesting
information are being "ignored". That's just not a rational
description of the situation.
All of this just makes me think that this whole conversation is
more
about generating noise than anything else. Regardless, I'll
finish the
task soon and then move on to the rest of my to-do list.
-Alicia
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:32 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via
Lnc-business
<[1][2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
The At-Large results shouldn’t be a one-person audit in this
case.
And no one who ran should conduct it.
I continue to offer to assist.
There was no intent to have an inappropriate tone and if
anything
presented that way you have my abject apology.
What is being asked - by several state Chairs - is a
timeline. I
don’t
think that is unreasonable. They feel like they are being
ignored.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:24 PM Richard Longstreth via
Lnc-business
<[1][2][3]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you for your work Alicia. I appreciate your hasty
efforts
and
dedication in getting these items available as soon as
you
can.
Richard
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 05:09 Alicia Mattson via
Lnc-business
<[1][2][3][4]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Ms. Harlos,
I indicated before that I would be traveling with a
full
schedule
and
only sporadic internet access, and would not return to
my
more
normal
routine until Monday. I got home from my trip Sunday
night,
and
starting in the wee hours of Monday morning you started
the
"Are
we
there yet?" messages about the At-Large details. Then
throughout
the
day it became rather unfair characterizations that I
was
saying
"well,
whenever" as though I'm blowing it off. That tone is
not
warranted nor
appreciated.
Yes, the state-by-state numbers that add up to the
totals
I
sent
do
exist, but providing that will not be the end of the
story.
If
all I
send is that, immediately the questions will begin
about
the
instances
where those numbers vary from the delegation tally
sheets
because
we
caught and corrected errors. Then while I am
researching
to
answer
those questions, we all know the internet gossip will
get
silly,
with
people not being careful to say only things they know
to
be
true
while
waiting on answers to the questions.
My usual practice is to do the post-convention audit as
part
of
building the convention minutes, which is near the end
of
my
to-do list
after having updated other minutes with timing
deadlines,
policy,
bylaws, platform, etc. Instead, so I can answer most
questions
on
at-large before they are asked, because there was a
very
close
outcome
that involves me, I've prioritized the audit of the
At-Large
race
to do
it mostly first...though I did also send updated
minutes
to
meet
a
posting deadline and update the Policy Manual earlier.
When I provide the state-by-state numbers, I'll scan
the
state
tally
sheets, plus provide my notes about what's different
between
the
two
and why so that those questions can be addressed
simultaneously
in one
message, rather than being spread out in different
places
at
different
times where people might miss some of it.
You're well aware of how long it took a team of 10
people
to
go
through
the Judicial Committee votes after the LNC meeting on
July
2nd?
You
can deduce from that how long it takes one person to
give
the
At-Large
the second-pass, fine-tooth-comb treatment. Today I
spent
a
LARGE
number of hours on the project. I think I have about a
dozen
states
left to go, plus tally sheet scanning and writing up my
notes.
It
takes only a few seconds for you to ask, "Are we there
yet?", but
it
takes a lot longer to actually accomplish it.
I didn't have the crystal ball at the start of the
project
to
know
precisely how long I would get to work on it today, or
how
long
it
would take to complete. Rather than emailing the LNC
every
30
minutes,
(and I haven't even taken time to comment on the two
email
ballots yet,
though I have a bit to say there), I'm focusing on just
getting
this
task done so I can move on to the next. It is a high
priority on
my
list, and when I finish it, I'll send it.
To others who have been asking about the rest of my
to-do
list,
I'm
doing this project first. In the case of adopted
resolutions,
please
recall that our convention forges ahead and adopts all
sorts
of
things
from the floor while the Secretary is trying to tally
election
results. I suppose I should be flattered that some
believe
I can
document those fully on the fly while I'm
simultaneously
aggregating
election results, and have completed minutes
immediately
following
adjournment, but that's a bit overly optimistic. I am
a
human
who is
constrained by the laws of time and space. I could
only
make
sparse
notes about the nature of other proceedings while I was
working
on
elections, and when I start building the convention
minutes,
I'll
have
to go back and review the recordings to verify that I
caught
all
the
relevant details. I have a large envelope of lots of
things
that
were
submitted in writing, so I'll fish out what was
actually
voted
on,
verify that the written submission matches what the
delegates
were told
they were voting on, etc.
Again, all these items are in the queue, and I'll get
to
them all
as
soon as I reasonably can now that I am back at home
with
my
usual
workspace, but it is unreasonable to expect it to all
happen
instantaneously.
-Alicia
References
1. mailto:[3][4][5]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
Secretary
- [4]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:[5][6]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:[6][7]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:[7][8]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. mailto:[8]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
References
1. mailto:[9]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:[10]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:[11]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. mailto:[12]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
5. mailto:[13]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. mailto:[14]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
7. mailto:[15]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
8. mailto:[16]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [17]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:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
5. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
7. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
8. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
9. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
10. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
11. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
12. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
13. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
14. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
16. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
17. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list