[Lnc-business] Seeking Co-Sponsors to work on Policy Manual style issues postponed from last meeting

[Joe Bishop-Henchman]

I would appreciate additional time. I had reviewed the document before 
the previous meeting, and this version is different, at least 
cosmetically. This week is particularly busy at work - a lot of people 
are visiting town for a big conference - and the time I do spend on LP 
this week will be spent reviewing the Bylaws applications.

JBH

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

On 2019-10-20 17:16, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> Ms. Mattson, you are mischaracterizing the situation.  Each category 
> was
> going to be addressed separately - but nonetheless - I said this 
> multiple
> times since then but you decided to wait until I actually asked for
> sponsors to bring this up.  I understand you are busy - everyone is 
> busy -
> and if I were too busy to do my responsibilities I would not insist 
> that
> nothing could be done until I was ready but trust the rest of the 
> committee
> to do their job.  None of this revolves around one person.  You didn't 
> even
> give me the courtesy of asking for more time.  You waited.
> 
> Now instead of continuing to argue about how things are not done to 
> your
> satisfaction, do you have a productive suggestion for proceeding?  I am 
> not
> a mind-reader.  This is really silly.
> 
> *In Liberty,*
> 
> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social 
> faux
> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 2:49 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> 
>> We had the color-coded categories at the last meeting, but the nature 
>> of
>> the discussion was NOT merely having them described in various 
>> categories,
>> but actually dividing the motion into several motions based on the
>> categories because there were objections to some but not to others.  
>> That
>> is what I expected next, a proposal for how to take them up in smaller
>> bites.  Instead we got only one category carved out separately and all 
>> the
>> rest lumped together in a single motion.  I have reviewed the audio 
>> from
>> the last meeting to make sure my memory is correct to expect more
>> subdivision of the question.
>> 
>> Not much was said during the meeting because this quickly became the
>> understanding, and there was no need to spend meeting time on 
>> something
>> that was going to be addressed by the person proposing the changes.
>> However, one of the feedback items from Dr. Lark during the meeting 
>> was
>> that he also did not prefer the "five (5)" edits.  There's public 
>> record
>> that such an item should probably be separated from the rest, but this
>> motion does not even do that.  Instead it uses things with probably no
>> objection (Oxford commas, inserting a missing "the" into a sentence) 
>> to
>> leverage wholesale agreement on the package including things that do 
>> have
>> objection, and when division is requested, the requester is attacked.
>> 
>> As most of the LNC knows, I've been on a petition drive that has 
>> consumed
>> nearly every waking moment of my time for three months, and I'm just 
>> not
>> going to feel badly for not having set that aside in favor of 
>> correcting
>> editorial errors on this draft which others could have also caught.  I 
>> got
>> annoyed at how many times I had to set aside that project to review
>> incomplete corrections to many versions of the minutes during that 
>> time
>> frame, having to send the same requests for the same changes more than
>> once.  That petitioning project is wrapping up now (have some residual 
>> work
>> to do this week, turning in by Oct 29, but not nearly so pressed for 
>> time
>> now), and I've got a lot of catching up to do on matters like this.  I 
>> have
>> started but have not completed my feedback on this extensive list of
>> proposed changes, and I can have it to you within a few days.  There 
>> are so
>> many changes being proposed at once that even my commentary needs
>> organization, but I'm not going to accept things I don't agree with 
>> just
>> because of the window dressing around them.
>> 
>> I don't agree that just because someone has invested time in an idea 
>> that
>> it obligates the rest of the board to sponsor a motion on it or 
>> approve of
>> it.  I've been on the losing side of that equation many times, 
>> developing
>> proposals, gathering info, and it goes nowhere because the rest of the
>> board doesn't agree with my goal.  That's how group decisions work.  
>> The
>> idea has to be successfully sold, and it may require an investment of 
>> time
>> that ultimately doesn't pay off with a sale.  It's not dismissive and 
>> rude
>> of a used car shopper to not buy a particular used car.
>> 
>> I can't agree with Mr. Phillips that the substantive matters have been
>> completely segregated from the non-substantive ones.  There are couple 
>> of
>> the items that may appear to be minor edits, but I think they impact 
>> the
>> meaning and should not be called mere editorial matters.  Mr. Phillips 
>> may
>> be dismissive of the importance of comma placement, but there's a 
>> classic
>> meme that goes:
>> 
>> Let's eat Grandma.
>> Let's eat, Grandma.
>> Commas save lives.
>> 
>> They can wholly change the meaning, so things that may on the surface 
>> look
>> like minor edits need to be reviewed with a careful eye and not just
>> blindly accepted.
>> 
>> -Alicia
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 2:38 AM Caryn Ann Harlos 
>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > At the meeting, I had indicated the categories as indicated by the colour
>> > coding.  The only person who has indicated that they have actually
>> reviewed
>> > with specific comments has been Dr. Lark who corresponded with me on the
>> > issues in the month following the LNC meeting without any prompting from
>> me
>> > because we all left knowing what was left, so no, my comments are not
>> > unfair.  My comments about email motions weren't solely about this,
>> however
>> > -- other LNC members have said the same thing about other motions and
>> there
>> > are more than a few who will no longer volunteer to do so in order to cut
>> > agenda time.  I just happen to be a bit more vocal, but I can assure you,
>> > this is not an isolated feeling.  We can blame the messenger or deal with
>> > the issue.  All the same to me either way because if I am one thing, it
>> is
>> > persistent.  I maintain my position - and anyone is free to disagree -
>> that
>> > when someone does voluntarily and out of courtesy move something off of
>> the
>> > agenda that it is discourteous to not do the homework to be able to
>> conduct
>> > the business nearly two months later.  *I asked for comments and input
>> > several times without response.  *It took me finally getting the sponsors
>> > to prompt even a vague conversation.  Style clean-ups are necessary
>> > periodically despite not being the most sexy of tasks, and myself and
>> > several volunteers put in over a dozen hours on this, and we deserve the
>> > respect of consideration of the work.  This is an endemic problem in the
>> > Party as Mr. Longstreth and I share the agony of working on something
>> > instructed by a board for several years only to have it ignored without
>> > even a thank you.  It is unprofessional.
>> >
>> > *If there had been ANY earlier input about breaking into different
>> > categories, I would have.* Even a simple request asking for more time etc
>> > could have been made.  It was not.  This has happened before to several
>> > people, there is absolutely no interaction until they finally ask for
>> email
>> > sponsors then all of a sudden there is commentary.  That is quite
>> > frustrating on items for which there is PLENTY of notice.  It is rude,
>> and
>> > that is my position.  I do not treat anyone's work in that manner and
>> none
>> > of us should.
>> >
>> > *In Liberty,*
>> >
>> > * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
>> > (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
>> > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
>> > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
>> > pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 1:59 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
>> > lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's unfair to your LNC colleagues to describe the discussion from the
>> >> last
>> >> meeting as allegedly the LNC talked you into doing this by email ballot
>> >> with "no real intention to handle by email ballot."
>> >>
>> >> The first the LNC saw of this material was in the wee hours of Friday
>> >> morning before the LNC meeting started on Saturday.  There was no way we
>> >> could have reviewed this and been ready for a vote so quickly.  Even the
>> >> minutes portray that you had merely distributed something for our
>> review,
>> >> and didn't even make a motion on the subject.  The end of the discussion
>> >> was that further work was needed, and in order to take it up by email
>> >> ballot it would need to be broken up into several categories of changes.
>> >> Now you're asking for almost all of it in a single motion, and when I
>> say
>> >> it needs to be broken up, you impugn motives and act as though we are
>> the
>> >> ones changing the plan.  That is not what happened, and I don't want to
>> >> leave that impression hanging for the readers.
>> >>
>> >> -Alicia
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 5:55 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> >> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I have no issue putting back on agenda, and this time, I will not be
>> so
>> >> > accommodating to agree to email ballot knowing that there is no real
>> >> > intention to handle by email ballot.
>> >> >
>> >> > In order to simply further, I will break out further - such as the
>> >> > parentheticals and the lists.
>> >> >
>> >> > This has been in the possession of the LNC for several months now with
>> >> > adequate time to review.  I am willing to work with everyone to
>> present
>> >> and
>> >> > vote in the most logical manner but it is like pulling teeth to get
>> >> > anything started which is not particularly motivating.
>> >> >
>> >> > This evening I will break out those categories.  I cannot do anything
>> >> with
>> >> > vague references to something that might be wrong.  I think we owe
>> each
>> >> > other a tad bit more specificity.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > *In Liberty,*
>> >> >
>> >> > * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
>> >> > (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
>> >> > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If
>> anyone
>> >> > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social
>> >> faux
>> >> > pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 6:22 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
>> >> > lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I have looked through some, but not all, of these million-ish items.
>> I
>> >> can
>> >> >> support some, but I object to others and cannot co-sponsor or vote in
>> >> >> favor
>> >> >> of the bulk package.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am writing from my phone, not sitting looking at the file now, but
>> >> off
>> >> >> the top of my head here are a few that I recall.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I do not wish to both spell out and write numbers in Arabic numerals.
>> >> It
>> >> >> may be standard for legal briefs, but it’s just bulky to read
>> around. I
>> >> >> know that “5” is the same thing as “five” without being told both.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There was at least one instance in which changes were proposed to be
>> >> made
>> >> >> within the quotation marks of a RONR quote, adding text not in the
>> >> >> original
>> >> >> document.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There were a number of places where the insert/strike formatting
>> wasn’t
>> >> >> done correctly making it hard to discern what was to be done with
>> that
>> >> >> text.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don’t wish to change numbered/lettered lists to bullet points. I
>> like
>> >> >> being able to cite subsections more precisely.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Etc.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This should not be done in such bulk by email when amendments aren’t
>> >> >> feasible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Even when amendments are feasible, this is too many things to roll
>> into
>> >> >> one
>> >> >> motion.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -Alicia
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:46 AM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
>> >> >> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Attached are the items I distributed last meeting comprising an
>> index
>> >> >> and a
>> >> >> > marked-up copy of the Policy Manual.  I am seeking co-sponsors to
>> >> make
>> >> >> all
>> >> >> > of the changes except for the ones marked in red which may be
>> >> considered
>> >> >> > substantive which I will address separately.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > *  In Liberty,*
>> >> >> > * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
>> >> Syndrome
>> >> >> > (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
>> >> >> > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If
>> >> anyone
>> >> >> > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
>> social
>> >> >> faux
>> >> >> > pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me
>> >> know.  *
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>