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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Ms. Mattson, the different categories ARE being addresses separately even
in this motion so I am not sure what your complaint is.  This is the
non-substantative category.  No, I did not suggest that if you were busy to
keep your mouth shut.  I did say if you were TOO busy, the committee must
function regardless.  We all have choices to make, and we were all elected
to work, not to work.

Thank you for those notes, I will review and give you my thoughts.  I am
glad we have moved to a more productive route.  Whether you believe it or
not, I respect your opinion more than nearly anyone on this committee.

*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 Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:33 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> Caryn Ann,
>
> I'm not sure what to make of a conversation in which the first sentence
> accuses me of misrepresentation, and then in the very next sentence agrees
> that I am correct that the different categories were to be addressed
> separately.  And of course I waited...until you actually asked for
> cosponsors for an en masse approval, how was I to know that was the route
> you were going to take as opposed to dividing the question like we
> discussed in Austin?
>
> Regardless, attached is a file with my feedback on these proposed changes.
> The two largest lists I provide are those items that I believe are actually
> substantive rather than editorial in nature, and also a list of editorial
> problems with the draft.
>
> You suggest that if I am busy, I should essentially keep my mouth shut and
> just let the rest of the committee do the job, but it's not like the items
> I'm attaching are otherwise being addressed if I don't bring them up, so I
> will decline your suggestion.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 2:16 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> 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.  *
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>