Should Nigel Short resign as FIDE delegate?

[John McKenna]

Yes, but if abstentions were worth -0.5 they wouldn't be abstentions, they'd be mild votes-against.

Agreed, Jack, and that's generally what I'd take them to be - mild-to-middling votes-against - others may not take them the same way.
However, in this instance while I understand why Andrew P & Phil E abstained, I am still trying to understand the other abstentions?! In fact it was only the support of the small but effective International brigade that saw Nigel scrape through.

[MartinCarpenter]

An abstention is just that - a refusal to vote either way on the issue. Gently silly to read them as partial votes against.

There seems to be a reasonable chance that a fair few of the people abstaining might simply have felt unqualified to judge. Either that or no strong opinion, some reason they felt like they shouldn't vote etc.

[John McKenna]

Martin, you are too polite, to return the compliment - I think it was gently silly of you to say that "an abstention is just that (an abstention)..." and not simply leave it at that. To then start to speculate about the reasons for abstaining implies that an abstention is not just an abstention. Whenever there can be different motives for doing deeds those deeds cannot be said to be just those deeds, indeedy.

[David Pardoe]

Abstentions could be seen as `not bothered, quite happy for things to continue...as is`, which might well cover the majority.
This whole `poll` is a nonsense, in my opinion.

It calls into question our whole electoral process... Are our delegates a bunch of idiots who cant choose sensible candidates, or are easily conned or duped/misled into voting for spurious candidates with questionable agendas?
Or maybe our `small minority` big block voters have far too much say, and have perhaps swung these elections grotesquely, on personal whims/narrow agendas...?

Its time to stop this ridiculous banter here and get on with the important work that needs to be done.

Many will feel our electoral processes have failed to deliver a sensible result, but our next chance to put matters right is the next elections/AGMs.

OMOV in some form, might help add some balance to the voting, if combined proportionately with delegate votes.
.
So far, we have a set of draft minutes, which have not yet been approved by the board, as far as I`m aware.

I believe the next step is for the board to formally meet, face to face, to discuss the way forward in a calm, civilized manner . I`d suggest this be held at a central location...maybe Birmingham, in the next few weeks, after consultations about availability, etc.

Why not tie this in with the next 4NCL meetings at Hinckley on w/e 22nd/23rd March.

As I`ve said, many of the issues that come up for debate by our small executive leadership group should actually be farmed out for further and wider consultation.

Issues like `Charitable Status`, Membership issues, the splitting of the ECF into smaller fragmented groups called `Professional` & `Plebs` needs particularly careful consideration, as it threatens to smash the already marginalized ECF into even less meaningful bodies, with even less clout...and creating yet more layers of management, with the formation of two new bodies.
We need to develop a more effective communication/consultation base with the various chess groups & bodies that make up UK chess, with less focus on the pursuit of personal agendas & self interest for certain minorities.

[David Robertson]

...or we could turn the ECF over to Mike Truran & Malcolm Pein, and adjourn to the beach.

[Paul McKeown]

`Professional` & `Plebs`

Is that the name of a knocking shop down Manchester way?

[Roger de Coverly]

I believe the next step is for the board to formally meet, face to face, to discuss the way forward in a calm, civilized manner

I suspect it's gone beyond that. I think the voting membership and wider chess public will not favour a President who writes as an apologist for taking moves back and ratings fraud, even if he and his supporters accuse a political opponent of some of the same things.

You can only read between the lines, as for several months the disputes and clashes appear to have been confined to Board meetings. It could be suspected that the January Board meeting for which no minutes have yet been published, may have been the final straw, with the "confidence" meeting being the attempt to resolve matters. I'm supposing the next step will be to convene an EGM or add motions to the Finance Council meeting. I suppose the Companies Act processes to remove individual Directors or Nigel may be invoked by both sides, although whether proposed replacements will be offered remains to be seen.

[JustinHorton]

I suspect it's gone beyond that. I think the voting membership and wider chess public will not favour a President who writes as an apologist for taking moves back and ratings fraud, even if he and his supporters accuse a political opponent of some of the same things.

Maybe. Or it may be that they won't feel that anybody's view on Azmai v Danailov is important enough to sneeze over, let alone have an ECF crisis about.

[John McKenna]

I suspect it's gone beyond that. I think the voting membership and wider chess public will not favour a President who writes as an apologist for taking moves back and ratings fraud, even if he and his supporters accuse a political opponent of some of the same things.

Maybe. Or it may be that they won't feel that anybody's view on Azmai v Danailov is important enough to sneeze over, let alone have an ECF crisis about.

Justin, that is true for some, maybe even the majority, of us but not for Nigel & Andrew.
Go on the way-back m/c a bit and it is not hard to see their fate.
Even before their paths crossed directly at the ECF their reputations preceeded them, so they were already primed to be at cross-purposes. Then they got their wires crossed - over the ECF's policy to the double-crossing head of a certain double-dealing body. Cross words followed and led to swords being crossed but in an absurd manner...
One dark morning, in the middle of the night two dead (?) men got up for a fight - back to back they faced each other, drew their swords and shot one another.
Who cares? They do - passionately - like a couple of gauchos dancing a tango of death with knives clenched tightly in their teeth until the final showdown in April, seemingly.