ECF AGM 2022

[John Reyes]

I just doubt the cat can be put back in the bag. But sure, something is lost.

My point is that in the mean time we seem to be persisting with the hybrid approach, having proved twice that people won't go, and it is the people who won't go that are insisting on it.

I always feel that you should turn up face to face to the AGM.

What was agreed with the date of the next meeting and where it was as I had to leave to get my train home to Manchester

I was worried about the cost of the venue as for this meeting it was over £800 and the one in London was over £2k

Also did we find out the date of the next finance and AGM dates and where as I had to leave to get my train

[PeterFarr]

Well you won your motion for Leeds / Manchester to be included in the rotation and also the motion was amended so that one of those would be the venue for 2023, rather than wait. There were no votes against I think.

Well done.

[NickFaulks]

I think they just wanted those people that favoured in-person to have the option; that's allowing, not insisting, a very big difference.

So they guessed what I wanted ( having not listened to what I said )*, voted for that, got it wrong and now we're stuck with yet another hybrid event to which nobody will go. Thanks.

*It is of course possible that they didn't hear what I said.

[PeterFarr]

I think they just wanted those people that favoured in-person to have the option; that's allowing, not insisting, a very big difference.

So they guessed what I wanted ( having not listened to what I said )*, voted for that, got it wrong and now we're stuck with yet another hybrid event to which nobody will go. Thanks.

*It is of course possible that they didn't hear what I said.

Very probably, yes.

Edit - towards the end of the meeting, there were a lot of discussions in the room that were very hard to hear from zoom, you could see people moving around and chatting, and there was a period of 3-4 mins when sound from the room was off completely. Also quite a number of people on zoom left before the end.

[John Upham]

It will interesting to see if perhaps the Chairperson only turns up for the next physical meeting and the rest all attend via Zoom together with a significant venue cost for one person and some sandwiches.

That could be some kind of record.

[David Sedgwick]

As I understand it Mike's conduct isn't a breach of governance rules ...

I never suggested that it was. I suggested that it was inappropriate and not helpful To Stephen Greep, views by which I stand.

I suspect Alan Atkinson's attack on Stephen Greep might have been a bit of an own goal.

I agree about that too. As Kevin Thurlow said up thread, this was an election where, the more that you heard from one camp, the more likely you were to vote for the candidate of another.

Except he did not. He sent a private email to selected recipients which was leaked.

Oh come on!

Mike Truran sent an email to a substantial number of members of Council, to the extent that some other members of Council commented on here that they appeared to have missed out. There was and is no suggestion that the email was confidential, so "leaking" doesn't arise.

He also sent an email to the SCCU President which was clearly intended for wider distribution within the SCCU. It was not well received.

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes, but the only reason to hold face to face meetings is so that people who go can meet others whom they would otherwise never see. If hardly anyone goes because there is a Zoom option then you get all the drawbacks of a hybrid meeting with no advantages.

I tend to think of Zoom and Teams as the practical implementations of the Telescreen technology as described in a 1948 book by George Orwell. But if you are going to use them, why have a Council with restricted attendance at all? Why not open it up to some or all of the people that the ECF demand pay to become its members while denying them direct voting rights?

[NickFaulks]

But if you are going to use them, why have a Council with restricted attendance at all?

I would like to see the whole meeting shown live on Youtube. FIDE has done this for Congresses ( including one where I featured for about 40 minutes on a Q&A session about titles and ratings before a halt had to be called ). I also used this for QC meetings, which was well received. ECF Council has voted that to allow its meetings to be seen by the general public would risk embarrassment, but I do not think that is a constructive approach.

Allowing all comers to speak does carry risks. To say the very least, the meeting would have to be chaired to military standards.

[J T Melsom]

As I understand it Mike's conduct isn't a breach of governance rules ...

I never suggested that it was. I suggested that it was inappropriate and not helpful To Stephen Greep, views by which I stand.

I suspect Alan Atkinson's attack on Stephen Greep might have been a bit of an own goal.

I agree about that too. As Kevin Thurlow said up thread, this was an election where, the more that you heard from one camp, the more likely you were to vote for the candidate of another.

Except he did not. He sent a private email to selected recipients which was leaked.

Oh come on!

Mike Truran sent an email to a substantial number of members of Council, to the extent that some other members of Council commented on here that they appeared to have missed out. There was and is no suggestion that the email was confidential, so "leaking" doesn't arise.

He also sent an email to the SCCU President which was clearly intended for wider distribution within the SCCU. It was not well received.

I don't wish to prolong this, but you could simply have said that the intervention of Execs in the election of Non execs was undesirable. I'm not sure 'inappropriate' is correct at all. And if trying to be even-handed (which you weren't) then the involvement of other Execs in the process might also have been acknowledged, as well as those elections where campaigning has been done by proxy. I stand by my comment that swipes (not constructive criticism) at Mike Truran remain part of the tradition for some. I'm delighted that the organisations with which you are associated support Mike last year. You could follow their lead.

[Chris Goodall]

I don't wish to prolong this, but you could simply have said that the intervention of Execs in the election of Non execs was undesirable. I'm not sure 'inappropriate' is correct at all.

Inappropriate means not fitting the situation and undesirable means you didn't like it. David didn't like it because it didn't fit the situation. Everyone agrees!

[John Upham]

The AGM would have worked technically had each person at the Birmingham venue used a headset with their laptop.

However, it seems a little weird to spend funds on a venue and some persons travel expenses to then have a Zoom meeting at a remote venue! There is something ironic in that.

The single biggest cause of issues was to have a distant microphone pretending to be a member of a non-existent audience. That method is going to be doomed to failure from the outset and entirely predictable.

(Out of interest, how many physical attendees would not be able or willing to use Zoom?

Transitioning to a Zoom only meeting presents ECF Council with an opportunity to increase the level of participation and geographic involvement. When was the last time someone resident in the WECU area attended a physical meeting?

The voting mechanism was a step forward and appeared to work well: thanks to those who implemented it.

Every single vote that the Surrey and Hampshire Border League cast was described as a "split vote" even though it wasn't but I can accept some teething issues. How one splits a vote of one I really do not know.

It is highly commendable that some wish to travel to the meeting but I suspect that will become a thing of the past. Things have moved on. Would Richard Haddrell been pleased? We will never know.

[Michael Farthing]

The AGM would have worked technically had each person at the Birmingham venue used a headset with their laptop.

Every single vote that the Surrey and Hampshire Border League cast was described as a "split vote" even though it wasn't but I can accept some teething issues. How one splits a vote of one I really do not know.

Yes it needs some better messaging, John.
The answer to the question is simple. By hitting one of the buttons saying "All for" (eg "All for David Eustace") you get a message saying that your vote has been received. There was then no need to hit the "Submit" button at all. (which perhaps some people did). It was this button that produced the confusing message.

Most of my efforts went into ensuring correct handling, down to any attempt, for example, to give candidates negative votes. [It would be an excellent way to cheat: Vote allocation 10; Fred Blocks 100; Joe Bloggs -90]. User clarity can be a lot harder and more tedious and sometimes the lack of clarity is only evident after the event as here we see.

I think my long term solution will be a requirement to specifically ask for a split vote if you wish to do this - it happens very rarely, though one person at the meeting said they would be doing so.

[Roger Lancaster]

Every single vote that the Surrey and Hampshire Border League cast was described as a "split vote" even though it wasn't but I can accept some teething issues. How one splits a vote of one I really do not know.

After my initial attempt at casting a vote was similarly rejected as a split vote, I discovered the correct button to press. To be honest, John's experience notwithstanding, I didn't think this was too difficult.

[Michael Farthing]

Maybe not, but it was quite a pressurised thing, perhaps worrying about holding everything up

[NickFaulks]

However, it seems a little weird to spend funds on a venue and some persons travel expenses to then have a Zoom meeting at a remote venue!

Correct. I shall not be travelling to Manchester twelve months from now in order to sit in an almost empty room wearing a headset.

It is highly commendable that some wish to travel to the meeting but I suspect that will become a thing of the past. Things have moved on.

I have absolutely no doubt that if some future ECF Board wished to pull wool over the eyes of Council at an AGM, they would find that a Zoom meeting offered a friendly environment. But if that is a price which delegates are willing to pay for the convenience of sitting at home on their sofas, perhaps while watching the football...