[Lnc-business] LNC business list volume and email communication style
brent.olsen at lp.org
brent.olsen at lp.org
Mon Aug 20 19:22:24 EDT 2018
We don't need to pass resolutions. Everything is already covered in the
Platform. ;)
-Brent
On 2018-08-20 16:20, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> 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