[Lnc-business] LNC business list volume and email communication style
Elizabeth Van Horn
elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
Mon Aug 20 11:10:44 EDT 2018
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
On 2018-08-20 01:57, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> Chuck, you wrote an extraordinarily long email. One thing to clarify for those who do not know- Chuck and I are very good friends, and his email didn't bother me personally in the least as we have built that kind of relationship.
>
> But in thematic overview, I emphatically disagree. You spent a great deal of time trying to make things into your own image.
>
> I will focus on one unspoken factor here: gender.
>
> And I know some of the other women will want to scream. I am NOT speaking for you. But I am talking about norms here and not individuals.
>
> My communication style (and since that Google memo came out which caused such a hubbub this subject has been an interest to me, I.e., was he right that tech companies don't have as many women because they basically require women to act like men? And I wondered the same about politics) is very very common to women.
>
> I work in a female dominated industry (insurance legal defense and the paralegal field is very pink collar) and this is not unusual. This is how we speak.
>
> So Chuck while I think there was a lot of good advice that I certainly will take for efficiency reasons, I ask you to consider that you are asking me to communicate like a typical corporate male, and I must decline.
>
> And here is the funny thing about all the gendered discussion that has come up recently. I am not even a feminist. I never paid attention to this stuff until it hit me in the face last year when the LNC sat there and let another LNC member basically say to me that my husband will just give me a position and absolutely no discussion was held about that. In fact when I tried to object I was summarily shut down. I didn't want to escalate as a Policy Manual complaint as I felt it was all unintentional but unintentional sexism is still sexism. It set me down a path of examining inadvertent and unrecognized gender biases in our communications.
>
> I think the LNC and the Party have a long way to go to truly incorporating women into its spaces. Most Libertarian women tend to very analytical (I certainly am
> That) with masculine communication styles. If we are going to grow, we have to break the mold and realize heart and chatter is important. Back and forth is how relationships form.
>
> So I decline Chuck. And the only real criticism I have of your missive is that you could have taken your iwn interpersonal advice and called me first.
>
> You are one of my closest LP friends. That's not a lot to ask.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 6:39 PM Chuck Moulton <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:
>>
>> 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_
-------------- next part --------------
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
On 2018-08-20 01:57, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
Chuck, you wrote an extraordinarily long email. One thing to clarify
for those who do not know- Chuck and I are very good friends, and his
email didn't bother me personally in the least as we have built that
kind of relationship.
But in thematic overview, I emphatically disagree. You spent a great
deal of time trying to make things into your own image.
I will focus on one unspoken factor here: gender.
And I know some of the other women will want to scream. I am NOT
speaking for you. But I am talking about norms here and not
individuals.
My communication style (and since that Google memo came out which
caused such a hubbub this subject has been an interest to me, I.e., was
he right that tech companies don't have as many women because they
basically require women to act like men? And I wondered the same about
politics) is very very common to women.
I work in a female dominated industry (insurance legal defense and the
paralegal field is very pink collar) and this is not unusual. This is
how we speak.
So Chuck while I think there was a lot of good advice that I certainly
will take for efficiency reasons, I ask you to consider that you are
asking me to communicate like a typical corporate male, and I must
decline.
And here is the funny thing about all the gendered discussion that has
come up recently. I am not even a feminist. I never paid attention to
this stuff until it hit me in the face last year when the LNC sat there
and let another LNC member basically say to me that my husband will
just give me a position and absolutely no discussion was held about
that. In fact when I tried to object I was summarily shut down. I
didn't want to escalate as a Policy Manual complaint as I felt it was
all unintentional but unintentional sexism is still sexism. It set me
down a path of examining inadvertent and unrecognized gender biases in
our communications.
I think the LNC and the Party have a long way to go to truly
incorporating women into its spaces. Most Libertarian women tend to
very analytical (I certainly am
That) with masculine communication styles. If we are going to grow, we
have to break the mold and realize heart and chatter is important.
Back and forth is how relationships form.
So I decline Chuck. And the only real criticism I have of your missive
is that you could have taken your iwn interpersonal advice and called
me first.
You are one of my closest LP friends. That's not a lot to ask.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 6:39 PM Chuck Moulton <[1]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:
[2]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.
[3]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:
[4]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.
[5]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
[6]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
- [7]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:chuck at moulton.org
2. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015056.html
3. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015058.html
4. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015057.html
5. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015066.html
6. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015067.html
7. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list