[Lnc-business] Thoughts on Alternatives to Mr Bishop-Henchman's proposal

[Sam Goldstein]

John, 

Who is saying the COC is stretched past max bandwith?  That would not be
anyone on the committee or anyone who actually knows anything about our
operations.  We had a 2 1/2 hour meeting last night to discuss how to
proceed in this ever changing environment and will continue to meet each
week.  

We have been and are continuing to involve the Credentials Committee and
the Bylaws Committee both offline and during our meetings to coordinate
our efforts.  Office staff is involved as well in their areas of
expertise.   

There are a couple contingencies that would eventually need LNC approval
and we will call for a LNC meeting when that becomes appropriate.  

Nothing significant is going to be decided for at least a couple more
weeks so feel free to tell to tell concerned members that contact you
that the COC has matters well in hand. 

Stay safe and 

Live Free!

---
Sam Goldstein, At Large Member
Libertarian National Committee
317-850-0726 Cell 

On 2020-03-31 07:39, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business wrote:

> Yes, you all are, and according to all accounts working insanely hard. Although apparently not everyone seemed to be aware of this.  This was not meant to disparage anyone's efforts or abilities.  Merely lighten/spread the load. 
> 
> For the last week (or more) we have heard how the COC is at or stretched a bit past max bandwidth.  What happens if something else comes along that must be handled by the COC?  Having a little available band width is just a good idea.  Particularly if we can do so by moving a couple things to groups who are supposed to specialize in those areas. 
> 
> Even more so as other people are also already working on these thing, so formalizing it as a temporary measure makes sense to prevent duplication of efforts when one group is overworked.
> 
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973 
> 
> On Mar 30, 2020 9:55 PM, Erin Adams via Lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> 
> The COC is working on those things.
> 
> Erin Adams Region 7 alt. 
> 
> On Mar 30, 2020 12:25 AM, Phillip Anderson via Lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> 
> Thank you John Phillips. 
> 
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 10:56 PM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < 
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote: 
> 
>> Thoughts on alternatives to Mr Bishop-Henchman's motion. 
>> 
>> Let me start with pointing out a couple things I have been told and 
>> observed. 
>> 
>> First is that I missed the earlier meeting with the COC due to other 
>> commitments, but in conversations since I am told that the COC gave basic 
>> outlines of plans in that meeting.  If that is correct, at this point we 
>> cannot do much more than that as far as actual solid plan details. 
>> 
>> Secondly, Mr Dehn's proposal is pretty much identical to how we ran the 
>> voting in the Affiliate Support Committee's contest, as suggested by Mr 
>> Fishman.  I say this not to discredit Mr Dehn's work, but to point out we 
>> already have proof of concept on much of his plan. 
>> 
>> So keeping those things in mind I have a few thoughts. 
>> 
>> 1st is we do not really need a plan for option A of just having the 
>> convention, as that is already in place. 
>> 
>> Not far behind that is if we cancel it entirely and have the LNC make 
>> selections.  Some polling options would be in order, but we could knock 
>> those plans out easily and be done quickly.  So we can leave those out of 
>> his proposal. 
>> 
>> That narrows the field a bit.  An alternative venue or delay also are more 
>> of an "are they possible" rather than a ton of planning - yes I realize 
>> that is a bit of an understatement, but that in many ways is more adapting 
>> existing plans rather than coming up with entirely new ones.  That narrows 
>> the field further. - Personal opinion on these tho is that they may 
>> actually be the least doable, since if Austin is shutdown still it is 
>> likely most alternatives will be as well, and we know delays may cost us 
>> ballot access in some states. 
>> 
>> Now we could then say "Let's pick the 2 or 3 remaining most likely and 
>> start some plans", that is an option.  However, before we get that far, 
>> most of those have the same 2 basic issues, Bylaws and Technology.  While 
>> there may be some differences in implementing them, broadly they are 
>> similar. 
>> 
>> Luckily, we already have 2 groups that deal with those things.  So I 
>> suggest rather than trying to overburden our already working like crazy 
>> C.O.C. we ask these groups. Ask Bylaws to put together a couple broad 
>> proposals that address changes that would be needed to proceed and present 
>> them in a few weeks.  Ask our IT committee or voting process committee (or 
>> both) to look into technology solutions that may be required to implement 
>> remote voting, also to present in a few weeks. I have some thoughts on 
>> that, but not germane here, but as I said earlier Mr Dehn's suggestion has 
>> already been successfully implemented once, other ways should be 
>> investigated as well. 
>> 
>> Ms Desisto and her team can continue refining plans in case we do need to 
>> offer refunds. 
>> 
>> These types of things can be broadly painted in and kept fluid while 
>> reducing our response time later. 
>> 
>> Then we go ahead and have a meeting on the 20th (or other date in that 
>> timeframe).  We get some reports back. We narrow options more, maybe divvy 
>> up some more research and planning , maybe not.  We set a firm date for a 
>> final decision and schedule that meeting. 
>> 
>> Voila, we get some progress, address some of the concerns of our members, 
>> reduce response time later, and do not crush our C.O.C. more than they 
>> already are. 
>> 
>> I am actually operating under the assumption some if not all of this is 
>> already being done, so this would not even really add more work to anyone, 
>> just formalize it publicly and put a time frame on it, which addresses the 
>> 2 biggest concerns I get from members. 
>> 
>> John Phillips 
>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative 
>> Cell 217-412-5973 
>>