Wednesday, February 20, 2013


I think we need to identify what we are talking about.

1) The extensive discussion of available Internet forums and Bulletin Boards is way above my pay grade. I have said and repeat, any delegates who want to create any kind of forums for discussion by delegates either nationally or in a given state is fine with me, as long as it doesn't impinge on any part of the existing web site. Tennessee has done something like this and Doug McCormick has created another forum and invited delegates to join in discussions there.

2) My thoughts on how I wanted the state caucus pages of the web site to work is merely to provide a convenient platform for caucus activity. It is not intended to preempt the autonomy of each state caucus to do business however it wishes. I do not believe that the convention Rules should attempt to dictate procedures to the caucuses. Caucuses are of various size and greater or lesser cohesiveness. If a caucus chooses to do its work outside of the convention website, it may certainly do so.



  1. One of the key advantages of a blog is the ability to have asynchronous discussions in parallel.

    Each blog post should be restrained to the topic used to open it.

    I agree that a set of rules for the Internet Committee Blog would be helpful, and that this should be fixed as a page at the top of the page.

    This should be accompanied by a list of unresolved discussion topics, and a draft of my next report to the Convention Floor.

    This will be implemented presently.

  2. Richard Michael CA024February 21, 2013 at 9:17 AM


    Neither blogs or forums are designed for collaborative work.

    In Ben's response to my objection yesterday, I have now learned that there are no fewer than 9 different blogs, plus a Tennessee Caucus forum, plus the Convention USA site state forums and main forums.

    When digging a ditch, at some point, you're going to hit the water table and stop.

    What's needed, in my opinion, is a collaboration or project management paradigm. There are already many of these out there. Some are low level and free, some are high level and expensive, and some in between.

    I recommend that the committee consider eliminating all blogs and forums and consider a cloud-based (no installation and no maintenance) product like Basecamp ( ).

    Basecamp provides for a 60 day (full function) trial.

    The minimum charge is $30 per month. (15 projects and unlimited users).

    1. Where does the Delegate propose that we raise the $30 per month for his proposal?

    2. Richard Michael CA024February 21, 2013 at 9:55 PM

      So, no other proposals but the one's the Internet Chair favors are allowed.

      Basecamp was an example.

      What are the costs for the Internet Chair's proposal and how are those costs to be paid?

      Isn't there a Finance Committee? Oops, can't post anything there.

      I suggest asking the Board of Advisers to fund one month each for the first year.

      Isn't the Internet Chair on that committee too?

    3. I have not proposed any proposals that would have any cost. The software is free, and the Internet Committee would volunteer time to install and maintain it would be as well.

      While I expect to be an Ex Officio member of the Finance Committee, this has not been established. The Finance Committee has yet to convene.

      I have no part in the Board of Advisers.