[Lnc-business] the FB group

[Susan Hogarth]

 I understand nothing will stop backchannel discussions - and I’m not even sure that would be a good idea if possible. What I am urging is that we generally try to avoid large-scale backchannel/offchannel discussions and that we definitely do not start setting up parallel/forked lists without very very compelling reasons.   
  

  
The rationale in this case was originally to ‘workshop resolutions’ - is this really something that requires so much of the lnc’s bandwidth that we need to in effect create a whole comitttee for it?
  

  
I do not see a compelling reason to start a fork in our discussions. It is a hassle for some members to add yet another channel, it creates the appearance of making transparency more difficult (the members will have to basically follow us around from group to group), and when ‘workshopped’ resolutions get back here then the same discussions will have to take place all over again, except that the motions will already have the requisite cosponsors and will not be amendable.   
  

  
I understand the positive motivation behind this and I love the idea of having free and open discussion on crafting resolutions. I think this list is fine for that.   
  
  
  
  
  Susan Jane Hogarth
  
  Region 5 Alternate
  
  919-906-2106 (tel:919-906-2106)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Aug 18, 2018 at 2:50 PM,  <Justin O'Donnell via Lnc-business (mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  The discussions here are already largely fragmented by broken threads,  
>  out of order delivery, and delayed response to previous queries. The  
>  ability to have offline unofficial discussions in an informal manner is  
>  important to efficiency. I agree that debate and official discussion  
>  should take place on the official list, but nothing is going to stop  
>  members from having offline discussions to discuss the goings on.  
>  Justin O'Donnell  
>  LNC Region 8 Representative  
>
>              
-------------- next part --------------
   I understand nothing will stop backchannel discussions - and I’m not
   even sure that would be a good idea if possible. What I am urging is
   that we generally try to avoid large-scale backchannel/offchannel
   discussions and that we definitely do not start setting up
   parallel/forked lists without very very compelling reasons.

   The rationale in this case was originally to ‘workshop resolutions’ -
   is this really something that requires so much of the lnc’s bandwidth
   that we need to in effect create a whole comitttee for it?

   I do not see a compelling reason to start a fork in our discussions. It
   is a hassle for some members to add yet another channel, it creates the
   appearance of making transparency more difficult (the members will have
   to basically follow us around from group to group), and when
   ‘workshopped’ resolutions get back here then the same discussions will
   have to take place all over again, except that the motions will already
   have the requisite cosponsors and will not be amendable.

   I understand the positive motivation behind this and I love the idea of
   having free and open discussion on crafting resolutions. I think this
   list is fine for that.

   Susan Jane Hogarth

   Region 5 Alternate

   [1]919-906-2106

   On Aug 18, 2018 at 2:50 PM, <[2]Justin O'Donnell via Lnc-business>
   wrote:

   The discussions here are already largely fragmented by broken threads,
   out of order delivery, and delayed response to previous queries. The
   ability to have offline unofficial discussions in an informal manner is
   important to efficiency. I agree that debate and official discussion
   should take place on the official list, but nothing is going to stop
   members from having offline discussions to discuss the goings on.
   Justin O'Donnell
   LNC Region 8 Representative

References

   1. tel:919-906-2106
   2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org