<div dir="ltr">Well, if everyone's going to weigh in, you know how hard I find it to keep silent (even if I do have the right to do so...)<div><br></div><div>I think an unused and, frankly, embarrassing section of the website should be taken down, if not forever, until it has been retooled to no longer be embarrassing and unused. I think staff ought to be able to do so, perhaps with regular (monthly?) reports to the IT committee. I think more such matters should be handled by empowered (and transparent) committees, rather than everything invoking board discussions. We tend to defer to staff, but we seem to do so only after requiring that every question first boil up to the highest level. I think this is backwards, and wasteful - and in this case, leads to embarrassing things remaining long after they have been identified as embarrassing while we go back and forth in a bureaucratic circle and make sure everyone has their say. (In this regard, Starchild's suggestion for a "red paper cutting ceremony" for the new "building" may be premature if we ourselves enjoy running around in such circles.) The answer - a better guide to what areas staff has discretion in, how oversight is exercised, more empowerment of committees and, dare I say it, an email list that more resembles the asynchronous meeting it has been turned into - i.e. use of efficient procedures for reaching decisions without endless debate. Presently, there is a lot of not-quite-debate with no motion before us. This is how organizations that do not effectively use rules of order run their meetings. We shouldn't imitate it if we expect to use email to make decisions, given that we as an organization are very good at making effective use of rules of order and are blessed with many PRPs, RPs, and others who are knowledgeable about effective organization structure, plus others who have an interest in becoming knowledgeable. A motion was made on this some years ago, and while I cannot renew it, I'd be happy to work on details with anyone who has the power to do so. Regarding clearer staff delegation, again, I can't make a motion, but I'll gladly work with anyone who can on reworking this policy.</div><div><br></div><div>I think there are some technological work-arounds that can be used for the calendar. One was posted to the state chairs list. I'm not a tech guy (I have enough trouble using my phone, which seemingly does everything except make phone calls) but the idea seemed to be that states that so chose could simply have their events automatically synch to the national site. I think this is reasonable. For reasons to be explained below, I agree about not letting people we don't know post willy-nilly to our calendar, but state chairs, and those given the ability to do so by state chairs, don't seem to fall into this category, and it just makes sense if we want affiliate events (IF we do - I'd suggest that these aren't actually NLP events, but it seems many do want them there) to offer the easiest way to do it, which is not requesting a log-in and password, nor is it emailing Eric (which also uses Eric's time), but rather clicking a button once and then continuing forevermore to do what you're already doing. (Full disclosure - in CT we maintain two event lists, one for our events and one for 'activist' events. States that do so should be able to synch their actual events, not their 'activist' events - which for us are events held by groups allied on one or more issue, or things like state fairs where we need activists to sign up to promote us.) States not so choosing can, at our discretion, be allowed to continue to email Eric, or can simply be excluded unless they agree to synch. </div><div><br></div><div>I do think our website needs more area for genuine open posting, as I've said before. I think we should have a section of the blog where anyone can comment, and where it is easy to have credentials to post. When I said this before, I was asked about the waste of staff time policing this - so I'll quickly state my reply here, which is "we don't need no stinking badges," or, to be more clear, we shouldn't police it - it should be libertarian. However, I do not think our calendar should be such an area, which is why I didn't list above the option of "let anyone post without getting a log-in and password." The calendar is not only a communication tool, but also a branding tool. I can very quickly list events that would appear that should not - Ron Paul events, Rand Paul events, the Justin Amash fundraising dinner, the NRA banquet, the CCDL rally packed with Republican speakers (3 candidates for my Congressional district from the GOP since it was pre-primary, and my candidate was turned down - although they did just agree to endorse my candidate running head to head against a gun-grabbing Democrat with no Republican in sight,) campaign events/fundraisers for those seeking but not having LP endorsements (which I'd guess, in addition to being unfair, might also pose some state and federal campaign law problems,) campaign events/fundraisers for those running for the LNC...I can go on. Before synching, affiliates should agree that, if they post such events on their calendars, they will segregate them so that the only events appearing on ours are actual state LP events.</div><div><br></div><div>In addition to any such synching, the calendar would also need a filter - again, this is rather easy. In fact, I think it costs about $2/month to buy this tool from Google apps - the school I used to work for used it, although they got it for free as a non-political nonprofit. This enables people to limit events by state, type, etc. If you don't want to see the state committee meeting from Kentucky, you won't; those who do want to see it will. </div><div><br></div><div>Or we can take it down and leave it down, and just point to each affiliate's events page, while posting updates for our own events.</div><div><br></div><div>I repeat that none of this, to me, really requires a board discussion.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding the comments of the alternate from California - I am curious how such a requirement will work. Would we simply repeal the section of our bylaws protecting the autonomy of the affiliates (doubtful, since it wouldn't pass and besides, the good doctor mentioned how loathe he is in general to infringe on that autonomy - and I fully agree,) would we add a section to the bylaws requiring that at least 3 people have access to the website (not a particularly reasonable topic for bylaws to cover, and just think of all the trouble thereby caused,) or would we decide that a signed affiliate agreement is not subject to that bylaw? Do we really want such a specific dictate to affiliates? Do we want to disaffiliate for cause any affiliate that only has 2 members with the tech background to feel comfortable working on their website? Considering our demographics and a few additional assumptions (not accurate in all cases, of course) a better question is if we want to disaffiliate 5-10 states for cause? Or, we could allow states to disregard such a requirement without disaffiliating, producing a wonderful precedent that will make other things so much easier...</div><div><br></div><div>Joshua Katz</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr">Joshua A. Katz<div><br></div><div>Region 8 (Region of Badassdom) Alternate</div><div>Libertarian National Committee</div><div><br>Chair, Libertarian Party of Connecticut</div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Guy McLendon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:guy@mclendon.net" target="_blank">guy@mclendon.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Starchild makes a noteworthy suggestion below. Perhaps a good alternate to<br>
taking down the calendar is to open posting privileges to more people.<br>
<br>
Perhaps LSLA may perform some of this work? State Chairs could perhaps ask<br>
the LSLA Secretary to post events on their behalf?<br>
<br>
Guy McLendon<br>
LNC At Large Member<br>
Chair Affiliate Support Committee<br>
Libertarian Party National Committee<br>
<a href="http://www.lp.org" target="_blank">www.lp.org</a><br>
Cell <a href="tel:832-372-8131" value="+18323728131">832-372-8131</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Starchild [mailto:<a href="mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net">sfdreamer@earthlink.net</a>]<br>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 12:07 AM<br>
To: Guy McLendon<br>
Cc: Starchild<br>
Subject: Re: [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Memo to LP State Chairs: Send us<br>
your Affiliate News<br>
<br>
Hi Guy,<br>
<br>
> While I agree with Brett and Scott that the calendar<br>
> (<a href="http://www.lp.org/event" target="_blank">http://www.lp.org/event</a>) is embarrassing as it is due to the paucity<br>
> of content, there's a better solution than deleting it or limiting<br>
> what's listed there to LNC meetings and conventions. It would be more<br>
> embarrassing not to have a calendar on-site at all, or to have one<br>
> that's even more limited.<br>
><br>
> Activists won't only be interested in stuff happening in their own<br>
> states. People have friends, family, relatives, colleagues living in<br>
> other places. People travel -- I've attended Libertarian happenings in<br>
> other places while traveling, and we've had out of town people show up<br>
> at our local events. We meet people at outreach events who live<br>
> elsewhere. Of course we could simply refer these people to their state<br>
> party's website or something, but if you want to maximize the<br>
> likelihood of someone getting involved, it's better to make it easy<br>
> for them. That way you can say, "I see here that the LP in your town<br>
> meets on (day/time/place)," or "Hey, did you know the Libertarian<br>
> Party in your state will be having a _____________ happening at<br>
(day/time/place)?"<br>
><br>
> As with a number of other things the LNC does (raising money, blog<br>
> posts on LP.org, press releases, social media posts, etc.), rather<br>
> than expecting a small number of staffers or committee members with<br>
> access to do everything, we can get much more bang for the buck with<br>
> *crowdsourcing*.20<br>
><br>
> In the case of the calendar, list a few basic guidelines for posting<br>
<br>
> and give anyone access to post events, and staff won't need to post<br>
> any more than they do now, maybe less. All that would really be needed<br>
> is an authorized person or persons to glance at it from time to time<br>
> and delete any spam or inappropriate listings.<br>
><br>
> Giving more people access to post gives more people reason to visit<br>
> LP.org more frequently. That means more website hits, more online<br>
> donations, more people reading our other content, etc. Same goes for<br>
> adding other features to the site that give people reason to visit. We<br>
> *want* lots of "stuff" on the site! If the calendar is really busy,<br>
> that's a *good* thing. An active calendar with lots of listings will<br>
> give site visitors the message that the Libertarian community is a<br>
> vibrant one with lots of stuff happening.<br>
><br>
> The problem with just saying "Let the affiliates keep their own<br>
> calendars" is that calendars on state party websites tend to suffer<br>
> from the same problem -- too few people have access to post events,<br>
> and consequently little gets posted, because it's just too much<br>
> trouble in most cases to contact the state party with an event, get<br>
> the info to the right person who can post it to the website, then wait<br>
> for them to get the listing up and hope they get it right. Activists<br>
> *might* be willing to deal with this red tape to send in their own<br>
> events, if they know who to contact and can rely on the info getting<br>
> posted promptly, but if they have to go through this process every<br>
> time they want to see a libertarian event they come across that's of<br>
> interest to LP members posted, they're just not going to be as likely<br>
> to do it as if they know they can quickly go and post it themselves<br>
> and see it listed right away.20<br>
><br>
> One conversation that comes up repeatedly on the LNC is what can be<br>
> done to help affiliates. This is something that can be done easily.<br>
> Having a comprehensive calendar on the national website where<br>
> state-level activists can post stuff without having to jump through<br>
> hoops to obtain access first will be providing an affiliate service.<br>
><br>
> Love & Liberty,<br>
> ((( starchild )))<br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>