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@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@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@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. *