[Lnc-business] LNC business list volume and email communication style
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Mon Aug 20 19:20:13 EDT 2018
It will be good when there is another thing like a resolution to hash out.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 4:49 PM Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila at lp.org>
wrote:
> If it is any consolation, I did whip up a forum today if anyone finds it
> might be useful or relevant to move certain discussions there,
> pertaining to chat or off topic ideas, or as a place to rally groups to
> discuss more in depth ideas. A complaint I hear often is that there are
> loads of e-mails on the business list, and priority messages are few and
> far between at times, if this is the case we can move a lot of
> discussion to other channels. The LPF does this with Slack and other
> services. If this is useful, we can take advantage of it, if not, that
> is fine too, perhaps it can be used as a stomping ground for members.
>
> http://libertarianchat.com/
>
> In Liberty,
>
> Steven Nekhaila
> Region 2 Representative
> Libertarian National Committee
>
> Impotentes defendere libertatum non possunt
> "Those without power cannot defend freedom"
>
> On 2018-08-20 06:08 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> > Whoa.... back up that horse dude. I ain’t gonna let that slide. You
> > are WAY out of bounds.
> >
> > Where did I:
> >
> > Call you a tyrant
> >
> > Call Chuck (one of my best friends in the LP) a latent misogynist
> >
> > The other two I did. And you have done equally.
> >
> > But sir, you are way out of line particularly regarding Chuck -
> > wayyyyyy out of line.
> >
> > And I would say - as I am sick and tired of every single time I
> > bring
> > up potential gender concerns - having it twisted.
> >
> > Our Policy Manual allows these concerns. And I’m really over not
> > having them heard respectfully.
> >
> > There have been past women LNC members who observed the same thing
> > and
> > said their concerns were not being heard.
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 3:31 PM Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business
> > <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > I hesitated whether to reply, but since we're at a point, in my
> > opinion,
> > where most LNC members seem to have given up wading through the
> > flotsam
> > of the e-mail list to do business, I figure I should give it a
> > last
> > try.
> > Mr. Longstreth said that he thinks it may be a good thing that the
> > LNC
> > list is "more active," but I disagree in that it's becoming more
> > active
> > among fewer engaged people. An echo chamber effect emerges - five
> > or
> > six
> > people emailing scores of emails to each other about something
> > gets
> > confused for something with broad support.
> > Regarding the claim that Ms. Harlos's email style is appropriate
> > when
> > viewed through a female lens, what I can add is that I work
> > extensively
> > as a colleague with hundreds of operations and HR professionals
> > across
> > the country, both of which are female-predominant fields. I'm at
> > in-person roundtables and on e-mail lists, often in a small
> > minority
> > of
> > men. On those lists, I have not seen a norm of everyone replying
> > to
> > every email, responding to express support or opposition to every
> > email,
> > or sending 4 emails in a row instead of one when responding. In
> > fact
> > I've participated in HR working groups, as the only man, that drew
> > up HR
> > policies describing such practices as employee manual violations.
> > I read the articles in the Harvard Business Review every other
> > month, I
> > interact regularly with over a thousand state officials and
> > several
> > hundred business leaders, and work closely with dozens of leaders
> > of
> > organizations at the federal and state level. That list includes
> > many,
> > many successful women whom I admire and respect. And none engage
> > in
> > that
> > described e-mail conduct.
> > Frequent replies are tolerable if they're a continuing building on
> > each
> > other's ideas, sharing achievements, and working through problems
> > with a
> > back-and-forth. Ms. Harlos referenced this in saying building
> > personal
> > relationships is important for our ability to work together, and a
> > back-and-forth is helpful for that. Others have expressed similar
> > wishes. I don't disagree.
> > Assuming that to be true, however, that nevertheless describes few
> > of
> > our e-mails. Ms. Harlos has sent emails to the LNC list calling me
> > a
> > dictator, Mr. Moulton a latent misogynist, Ms. Hogarth rude, Mr.
> > Phillips hysterical and devoid of rationality, etc. If the goal
> > there is
> > to build personal relationships, I don't see it happening that
> > way.
> > There have been other offenders - I still remember being shocked
> > when
> > Ms. Adams described a proposal of mine (the JC acknowledgement
> > one)
> > as
> > "bullshit," "unacceptable," "gross," "vile," and "sickening." Many
> > others have had moments of incivility. But what Mr. Moulton
> > catalogued
> > in his email is like nothing I've encountered before - and I was a
> > libertarian in the Berkeley student government, which is tensely
> > civil
> > and barely functional at its best.
> > My schedule has been awful in the last few months and I've only
> > been
> > able to talk on the phone with about a quarter of you so far,
> > fewer
> > than
> > I had hoped and promised. Of those of you I have spoken with,
> > there
> > are
> > many amazing ideas for building up party infrastructure, getting
> > people
> > elected and re-elected, and filling a massive gap being left by
> > the
> > chaos in the Republican and Democratic parties. I'd love to be
> > able
> > to
> > hash such things out on the list to make good ideas even better in
> > advance of our meetings. But that's not going to happen unless we
> > stop
> > calling people names when they float ideas or cast votes, stop
> > derisively dismissing each other when they disagree, and stop
> > sending
> > repetitive or multiple emails in reply whenever anyone expresses
> > an
> > opinion. These are not "different styles of communicating," it's
> > bullying and abusive.
> > If we don't stop doing those things, you can move the discussion
> > to
> > whatever forum or format you want, but the poison will follow us
> > there.
> > For these reasons, I formally object to setting up any LNC
> > discussion
> > forum, bulletin board, Facebook group, PHP setup or server, or
> > system
> > other than the existing e-mail list and our in-person meetings.
> > JBH
> > ------------
> > Joe Bishop-Henchman
> > LNC Member (At-Large)
> > [2]joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
> > [3]www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
> > On 2018-08-20 06:59, Richard Longstreth wrote:
> > > Chuck,
> > >
> > > I appreciate your input as well. From my point of view I have to
> > say
> > > that if I see an email I wish to respond to, I will. The reason
> > is
> > > that chatter and discussion is exactly how deliberation takes
> > place.
> > > For too long the LNC has accomplished less than what it is
> > capable
> > of
> > > and that is at least in some part to people not being actively
> > engaged
> > > in email discussion. You can review the past. Typically I don't
> > > respond where unecessary, however, I reserve the right and
> > encourage
> > > all LNC members to respond to whatever email they see fit.
> > >
> > > As far as an off email discussion forum where business is not
> > done
> > but
> > > things are workshopped: I would think that solution to be
> > amicable
> > to
> > > you as it greatly reduces non essential email and chatter to
> > another
> > > area where those interested would be free to peruse and those
> > who
> > just
> > > want business could just pay attention to email.
> > >
> > > Bottom line: Everyone in the LNC was elected to do a job. I do
> > not
> > > believe that we can handicap anyone's ability to do that job by
> > > telling them they can only respond to email if it's new to the
> > > conversation, they've deliberated themselves for hours, the
> > email
> > > contains more than a dis/agreement statement (heck a vote is
> > simply I
> > > agree or disagree with no explanation needed), etc.
> > >
> > > I appreciate your comments and respect your thought process but
> > I
> > am
> > > happy to see the LNC becoming more active and encourage each
> > member to
> > > serve in whatever capacity they see fit.
> > >
> > > Richard Longstreth
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2018, 22:57 Caryn Ann Harlos
> > <[4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> > > 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
> > <[5]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:
> > >>>
> > >>> [6]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.
> > >>>
> > >>> [7]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:
> > >>>
> > >>> [8]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.
> > >>>
> > >>> [9]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
> > >>>
> > >>> [10]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_
> > > --
> > >
> > > Richard Longstreth
> > > Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA,
> > WY)
> > > Libertarian National Committee
> > > [11]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > > 931.538.9300
> >
> > --
> >
> > --
> > In Liberty,
> > Caryn Ann Harlos
> > Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> > - [12]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:joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
> > 3. http://www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
> > 4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> > 5. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
> > 6. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015056.html
> > 7. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015058.html
> > 8. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015057.html
> > 9. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015066.html
> > 10. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015067.html
> > 11. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 12. 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 --------------
It will be good when there is another thing like a resolution to hash
out.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 4:49 PM Steven Nekhaila
<[1]steven.nekhaila at lp.org> wrote:
If it is any consolation, I did whip up a forum today if anyone
finds it
might be useful or relevant to move certain discussions there,
pertaining to chat or off topic ideas, or as a place to rally groups
to
discuss more in depth ideas. A complaint I hear often is that there
are
loads of e-mails on the business list, and priority messages are few
and
far between at times, if this is the case we can move a lot of
discussion to other channels. The LPF does this with Slack and other
services. If this is useful, we can take advantage of it, if not,
that
is fine too, perhaps it can be used as a stomping ground for
members.
[2]http://libertarianchat.com/
In Liberty,
Steven Nekhaila
Region 2 Representative
Libertarian National Committee
Impotentes defendere libertatum non possunt
"Those without power cannot defend freedom"
On 2018-08-20 06:08 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> Whoa.... back up that horse dude. I ain’t gonna let that slide.
You
> are WAY out of bounds.
>
> Where did I:
>
> Call you a tyrant
>
> Call Chuck (one of my best friends in the LP) a latent
misogynist
>
> The other two I did. And you have done equally.
>
> But sir, you are way out of line particularly regarding Chuck -
> wayyyyyy out of line.
>
> And I would say - as I am sick and tired of every single time I
> bring
> up potential gender concerns - having it twisted.
>
> Our Policy Manual allows these concerns. And I’m really over
not
> having them heard respectfully.
>
> There have been past women LNC members who observed the same
thing
> and
> said their concerns were not being heard.
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 3:31 PM Joe Bishop-Henchman via
Lnc-business
> <[1][3]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> I hesitated whether to reply, but since we're at a point, in
my
> opinion,
> where most LNC members seem to have given up wading through
the
> flotsam
> of the e-mail list to do business, I figure I should give it
a
> last
> try.
> Mr. Longstreth said that he thinks it may be a good thing
that the
> LNC
> list is "more active," but I disagree in that it's becoming
more
> active
> among fewer engaged people. An echo chamber effect emerges -
five
> or
> six
> people emailing scores of emails to each other about
something
> gets
> confused for something with broad support.
> Regarding the claim that Ms. Harlos's email style is
appropriate
> when
> viewed through a female lens, what I can add is that I work
> extensively
> as a colleague with hundreds of operations and HR
professionals
> across
> the country, both of which are female-predominant fields. I'm
at
> in-person roundtables and on e-mail lists, often in a small
> minority
> of
> men. On those lists, I have not seen a norm of everyone
replying
> to
> every email, responding to express support or opposition to
every
> email,
> or sending 4 emails in a row instead of one when responding.
In
> fact
> I've participated in HR working groups, as the only man, that
drew
> up HR
> policies describing such practices as employee manual
violations.
> I read the articles in the Harvard Business Review every
other
> month, I
> interact regularly with over a thousand state officials and
> several
> hundred business leaders, and work closely with dozens of
leaders
> of
> organizations at the federal and state level. That list
includes
> many,
> many successful women whom I admire and respect. And none
engage
> in
> that
> described e-mail conduct.
> Frequent replies are tolerable if they're a continuing
building on
> each
> other's ideas, sharing achievements, and working through
problems
> with a
> back-and-forth. Ms. Harlos referenced this in saying building
> personal
> relationships is important for our ability to work together,
and a
> back-and-forth is helpful for that. Others have expressed
similar
> wishes. I don't disagree.
> Assuming that to be true, however, that nevertheless
describes few
> of
> our e-mails. Ms. Harlos has sent emails to the LNC list
calling me
> a
> dictator, Mr. Moulton a latent misogynist, Ms. Hogarth rude,
Mr.
> Phillips hysterical and devoid of rationality, etc. If the
goal
> there is
> to build personal relationships, I don't see it happening
that
> way.
> There have been other offenders - I still remember being
shocked
> when
> Ms. Adams described a proposal of mine (the JC
acknowledgement
> one)
> as
> "bullshit," "unacceptable," "gross," "vile," and "sickening."
Many
> others have had moments of incivility. But what Mr. Moulton
> catalogued
> in his email is like nothing I've encountered before - and I
was a
> libertarian in the Berkeley student government, which is
tensely
> civil
> and barely functional at its best.
> My schedule has been awful in the last few months and I've
only
> been
> able to talk on the phone with about a quarter of you so far,
> fewer
> than
> I had hoped and promised. Of those of you I have spoken with,
> there
> are
> many amazing ideas for building up party infrastructure,
getting
> people
> elected and re-elected, and filling a massive gap being left
by
> the
> chaos in the Republican and Democratic parties. I'd love to
be
> able
> to
> hash such things out on the list to make good ideas even
better in
> advance of our meetings. But that's not going to happen
unless we
> stop
> calling people names when they float ideas or cast votes,
stop
> derisively dismissing each other when they disagree, and stop
> sending
> repetitive or multiple emails in reply whenever anyone
expresses
> an
> opinion. These are not "different styles of communicating,"
it's
> bullying and abusive.
> If we don't stop doing those things, you can move the
discussion
> to
> whatever forum or format you want, but the poison will follow
us
> there.
> For these reasons, I formally object to setting up any LNC
> discussion
> forum, bulletin board, Facebook group, PHP setup or server,
or
> system
> other than the existing e-mail list and our in-person
meetings.
> JBH
> ------------
> Joe Bishop-Henchman
> LNC Member (At-Large)
> [2][4]joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
> [3][5]www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
> On 2018-08-20 06:59, Richard Longstreth wrote:
> > Chuck,
> >
> > I appreciate your input as well. From my point of view I
have to
> say
> > that if I see an email I wish to respond to, I will. The
reason
> is
> > that chatter and discussion is exactly how deliberation
takes
> place.
> > For too long the LNC has accomplished less than what it is
> capable
> of
> > and that is at least in some part to people not being
actively
> engaged
> > in email discussion. You can review the past. Typically I
don't
> > respond where unecessary, however, I reserve the right and
> encourage
> > all LNC members to respond to whatever email they see fit.
> >
> > As far as an off email discussion forum where business is
not
> done
> but
> > things are workshopped: I would think that solution to be
> amicable
> to
> > you as it greatly reduces non essential email and chatter
to
> another
> > area where those interested would be free to peruse and
those
> who
> just
> > want business could just pay attention to email.
> >
> > Bottom line: Everyone in the LNC was elected to do a job. I
do
> not
> > believe that we can handicap anyone's ability to do that
job by
> > telling them they can only respond to email if it's new to
the
> > conversation, they've deliberated themselves for hours, the
> email
> > contains more than a dis/agreement statement (heck a vote
is
> simply I
> > agree or disagree with no explanation needed), etc.
> >
> > I appreciate your comments and respect your thought process
but
> I
> am
> > happy to see the LNC becoming more active and encourage
each
> member to
> > serve in whatever capacity they see fit.
> >
> > Richard Longstreth
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 19, 2018, 22:57 Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[4][6]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> > 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
> <[5][7]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:
> >>>
> >>>
[6][8]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.
> >>>
> >>>
[7][9]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:
> >>>
> >>>
[8][10]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.
> >>>
> >>>
[9][11]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
> >>>
> >>>
[10][12]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_
> > --
> >
> > Richard Longstreth
> > Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI,
UT, WA,
> WY)
> > Libertarian National Committee
> > [11][13]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 931.538.9300
>
> --
>
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> - [12]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:[14]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 2. mailto:[15]joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
> 3. [16]http://www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
> 4. mailto:[17]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 5. mailto:[18]chuck at moulton.org
> 6. [19]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015056.html
> 7. [20]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015058.html
> 8. [21]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015057.html
> 9. [22]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015066.html
> 10. [23]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015067.html
> 11. mailto:[24]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 12. mailto:[25]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [26]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:steven.nekhaila at lp.org
2. http://libertarianchat.com/
3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. mailto:joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
5. http://www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
8. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015056.html
9. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015058.html
10. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015057.html
11. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015066.html
12. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015067.html
13. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
14. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. mailto:joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
16. http://www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
17. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
18. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
19. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015056.html
20. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015058.html
21. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015057.html
22. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015066.html
23. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015067.html
24. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
25. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
26. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list