[Lnc-business] Fwd: a few concerns - data policy, google drive, email list archive

[Joe Bishop-Henchman]

Forwarding in case anyone didn't get this message from Chuck.

JBH

------------
Joe Bishop-Henchman
LNC Member (At-Large)
joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: a few concerns - data policy, google drive, email list archive
Date: 2019-03-09 05:27
 From: Chuck Moulton <chuck at moulton.org>
To: Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org>, Alex Merced <alex.merced at lp.org>, 
Tim Hagan <treasurer at lp.org>, Caryn Ann Harlos <secretary at lp.org>, Joe 
Bishop-Henchman <joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org>, Sam Goldstein 
<sam.goldstein at lp.org>, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson at lp.org>, William 
Redpath <william.redpath at lp.org>, Joshua Smith <joshua.smith at lp.org>, 
Richard Longstreth <richard.longstreth at lp.org>, Steven Nekhaila 
<steven.nekhaila at lp.org>, Victoria Paige Lee 
<victoria.paige.lee at lp.org>, Elizabeth Van Horn 
<elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>, Dustin Nanna <dustin.nanna at lp.org>, Jeffrey 
Hewitt <jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>, Kenneth Brent Olsen 
<kenneth.olsen at lp.org>, Jim Lark <james.lark at lp.org>, Susan Hogarth 
<susan.hogarth at lp.org>, John Phillips <john.phillips at lp.org>, Phillip 
Anderson <phillip.anderson at lp.org>, Whitney Bilyeu 
<whitney.bilyeu at lp.org>, Erin Adams <erin.adams at lp.org>, Justin 
O'Donnell <justin.odonnell at lp.org>, Jeff Lyons <jeff.lyons at lp.org>
Cc: Lauren Daugherty <lauren.daugherty at lp.org>

LNC members,

I have three concerns I want to bring to your attention: data policy, 
Google docs, and email list archive.  I'll try to be brief -- and fail. 
Please talk with me at the meeting or reply to this email if you want 
more details.  Feel free to forward or share this email.


1. Data Policy
--------------

The Data Use by Affiliates policy manual amendment as written is a poor 
idea.  It removes language stating staff shall try to provide data to 
affiliates in a desired file type, removes language stating staff will 
give notice before changing the order of data elements, and changes 
language requiring delivery at the start of the month.

I believe many on the LNC lack institutional memory.  The LP 
transitioned to Raiser's Edge as national's database in 2004.  When this 
happened, data dumps to states went from reliable on consistent dates in 
consistent formats with usable data to unreliable on inconsistent dates 
in inconsistent formats with unusable data.  States mutinied.

Once the mess was sorted out (which took YEARS), policy manual language 
was put in place to 1) ensure data dumps would go out monthly at around 
the beginning of the month rather than months and months with no data, 
2) ensure states could get data dumps in formats they preferred and 
could read, and 3) have the fields in a consistent order (rather than 
random order changing every month, which is what was happening 
previously), allowing easy importing into automated data solutions (such 
as Alicia Mattson's state database program, among others).

I think the LNC has a habit of assuming if people aren't talking about a 
policy, then it can be safely removed.  But people are not talking about 
this policy because it works.  To provide another piece of institutional 
memory: many years ago the LNC had an APRC.  The APRC was removed 
because the LNC figured keeping staff on message wasn't really a problem 
(staff never went off the reservation).  Then a few months after the 
APRC was disbanded (messaging oversight removed), staff released a 
document called the "Iraq Exit Strategy" suggesting that troops be moved 
from Iraq to other bases around the world -- especially Afghanistan -- 
instead of simply brought home and troop level shrunk.  The LNC quickly 
realized the APRC was in fact needed and recreated it.

If these policy manual provisions asking staff to play nice with states 
in data dumps are removed, it's possible everything will run smoothly. 
But if staff goes crazy again, the blame will be placed squarely on the 
LNC for removing all of the oversight requiring staff to play nice with 
state database managers.  And if that happens, none of you will be 
re-elected.  You've spent many, many messages talking about the 
executive director hire and zero messages on the business list talking 
about this policy change.  In point of fact, making sure states get 
their data dumps is several orders of magnitude more important than who 
is hired as executive director.  Go ask the leadership and/or activists 
of any state affiliate and they will tell you that.

I encourage you all to think hard about deleting oversight language 
requiring staff to play nice with state data dumps and to talk to your 
state chairs and state database managers to get their opinions before 
voting on this amendment.


2. Google Drive
---------------

The secretary and several regional reps have gotten in the habit of 
sending documents as links to Google documents rather than as PDF 
attachments.  This is a problem for three reasons:

a) Google documents can be unilaterally modified after the fact, so when 
notice is given for a policy manual change a completely different 
paragraph may be unilaterally substituted (which arguably does not 
satisfy parliamentary notice requirements);

b) documents can be unilaterally deleted after the fact, which deprives 
the LP of historical records; and

c) Google as a company has been shown to routinely track users and 
violate their privacy, so the LNC and interested observers are forced to 
choose between being out of the loop of LNC business or throwing 
themselves open to Google's prying eyes.

Google documents should be a SUPPLEMENT to attachments on the LNC email 
list, not a SUBSTITUTE for attachments on the LNC email list.  Feel free 
to include a Google link, but also provide an attachment.

Until this term all documents were added as attachments to email, and 
saved as attachments on the LNC business list.  These attachments were 
preserved for the historical archive and could not be unilaterally 
modified or deleted by their original authors.  If regional 
representatives want to provide their regional reports in bad formats so 
many people will not read them, that's fine -- they will eventually be 
appended to the final minutes in a readable PDF format on lp.org a month 
after the meeting anyway.  But motions and drafts of minutes should be 
sent to the list, not sent as links to external websites which can be 
unilaterally changed or deleted.

It would be nice if the offending people would change their behavior. If 
they do not, I suggest the following:

a) as a board, amend the policy manual to require plaintext in email or 
PDF attachments for any proposed motion or minutes draft to satisfy the 
notice requirement; and

b) as an individual board member, vote against any motion sent only in 
Google docs format and object to any draft minutes sent only in Google 
docs format.


3. Email List Archive
---------------------

A switch was flipped which made many messages to the list archive 
unreadable.  Flipping the switch to make those messages unreadable was a 
conscious decision by the secretary and IT.  It's unacceptable.

Most messages from the following people are unreadable:
* John Phillips
* Justin O'Donnell
* Dustin Nanna

A few messages from the following people are unreadable:
* Sam Goldstein
* Joe Bishop-Henchman

Here are some examples:
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2019/016544.html
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2019/016664.html
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2019/016310.html

The problem is these people are sending messages in HTML rather than 
plaintext.  A setting may be toggled that makes such messages readable, 
but the cost is all links are appended to the bottom of emails as 
footnotes.  IT (particularly Ken Moellman) has searched in vain for 
months to find a third solution which neither has unreadable emails nor 
URL footnotes.

This leaves two possibilities:

a) all messages are readable, but URLs are appended as footnotes; or

b) some messages are unreadable, with no URL footnotes

Both of these problems can be mitigated.  For (a) the number of 
footnotes would be minimal if all LNC members would trim their replies 
to what is actually relevant (which is basic email etiquette anyway) 
rather than including the whole email thread from the beginning of time. 
  (On desktops that involves highlighting the excess at the bottom and 
deleting it.  On mobile that involves highlighting the text you want to 
keep, then clicking "reply".)  For (b) the IT Committee, volunteers, and 
staff could work with the few affected individuals to tweak their email 
settings such that they send plaintext emails instead of HTML, making 
their messages readable.

It is my opinion that if we are left in the situation where no 
mitigation efforts are employed at the user level, having URLs appended 
as footnotes is the lesser evil to messages which are completely 
unreadable.  Having unreadable messages on the email list archive 
violates the basic transparency afforded by the bylaws.

Please either toggle the switch back, or work with the people listed 
above to fix their email settings.

If the LNC continues to have an email archive full of unreadable 
messages from a few individuals, we'll have to waste convention time 
passing a bylaws amendment I'll draft (from the floor if necessary, with 
flyers and a lobbying campaign) requiring that the email archive be 
readable -- or mandating that the switch on that setting be flipped a 
particular way to achieve that (an awkward bit of micromanagement to 
stick in big picture bylaws).


Thank you for your attention and consideration.


Chuck Moulton, J.D., Ph.D.
Life Member, Libertarian Party