Seeking Co-Sponsors to work on Policy Manual style issues postponed from last meeting
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. *
BUMPING THIS - and giving notice that whatever policy manual issues that were reserved to email ballot I am asking to be back on agenda if not reached by email ballot. * 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. * On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 1:46 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> 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. *
I will cosponsor Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300 Sent from my Mobile Device On Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 00:46 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. *
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. *
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. *
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. *
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@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@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. *
Thank you Mr. Phillips. I’m willing to divide in any way. But that requires someone making the effort to tell me what they wish. On this issue no one can say I did not go out my way to break things down with a coded index. It’s been months. I’ve always talked about this for nearly a year before presenting. On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 9:13 AM John Phillips <john.phillips@lp.org> wrote:
People constantly complain about putting up motions without discussion, but then will never discuss unless a motion is brought forward, and then half of the discussion is complaining that it wasn't discussed first.
This has happened repeatedly.
In this particular case we were presented with this information months ago, with the expectation of it being brought back up - clearly stated in our last meeting. While several times this has not been the case, this time it was.
Anyone who did not go over it - thats on them not the maker of the motion. So honestly, my feeling on this matter is put up or shut up, to put it crudely. Step up and discuss, or don't complain when it comes up as a motion.
HOWEVER, as I believe we discovered in our last budget meeting, motions to separate are always in order, and only require a majority. Nor do I think there is a specific requirement on how we separate.
So if that is really the issue make such a motion. Though I believe Ms Harlos indicated she has split the substantive changes from the merely style/grammar changes already, so unsure why that would be necessary, as I m not going to argue for days over where a comma is.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On Oct 20, 2019 4:38 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.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@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@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. *
--
*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. *
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@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@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@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. *
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@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@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@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@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. *
I would appreciate additional time. I had reviewed the document before the previous meeting, and this version is different, at least cosmetically. This week is particularly busy at work - a lot of people are visiting town for a big conference - and the time I do spend on LP this week will be spent reviewing the Bylaws applications. JBH ------------ Joe Bishop-Henchman LNC Member (At-Large) joe.bishop-henchman@lp.org www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837 On 2019-10-20 17:16, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business 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@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@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@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@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. * >
No problem, but FYI there is no difference. I literally attached the same things already sent before the meeting that I had from that folder. How long do you think you need? *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 Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 2:00 PM Joe Bishop-Henchman < joe.bishop-henchman@lp.org> wrote:
I would appreciate additional time. I had reviewed the document before the previous meeting, and this version is different, at least cosmetically. This week is particularly busy at work - a lot of people are visiting town for a big conference - and the time I do spend on LP this week will be spent reviewing the Bylaws applications.
JBH
------------ Joe Bishop-Henchman LNC Member (At-Large) joe.bishop-henchman@lp.org www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
On 2019-10-20 17:16, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business 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@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@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@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@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. * > > >
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@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@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@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@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@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. * >
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@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@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@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@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@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@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. * > > >
participants (6)
-
Alicia Mattson -
Caryn Ann Harlos -
Caryn Ann Harlos -
Joe Bishop-Henchman -
John Phillips -
Richard Longstreth