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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

The CoC has been keeping me in the loop for the items that would concern my
duties.

-Caryn Ann

*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, Mar 31, 2020 at 6:53 AM Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> 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
> >>
>