Board minutes

[Andrew Martin]

Has any progress been made on this issue whatsoever?

[Carl Hibbard]

Has any progress been made on this issue whatsoever?

Best asked in the "other place" but I doubt it no.

[Carl Hibbard]

Has any progress been made on this issue whatsoever?

Best asked in the "other place" but I doubt it no.

Are you the new user over there CaptainCoach as well Andrew?

[Andrew Martin]

Sorry, no. I have no idea who that is. I thought it was obligatory to use real names.

[Carl Hibbard]

Sorry, no. I have no idea who that is. I thought it was obligatory to use real names.

Anyone who is a member can have a quick nose when the 'moderators' last logged on

[benedgell]

I'll go 2 weeks+ before Andrew/ myself get a reply from the other Forum. 2.5 months since the November board meeting, I assume there was one in December. Wonder if I'll find out what happened at either before the Finance Council meeting...

[Roger de Coverly]

Wonder if I'll find out what happened at either before the Finance Council meeting...

The draft minutes of the October AGM are available, but it's already known what happened at that meeting thanks to the unofficial reports made public by yourself, Richard Haddrell and John Philpott along with various private reports by other attendees.

[Roger de Coverly]

Wonder if I'll find out what happened at either before the Finance Council meeting...

It's looking increasingly likely as if ECF voting members won't find out what the Directors have been doing or deciding for the last six months until shortly before the April meeting or possibly during it.

This time last year there was the major fight about who to support in the ECU and FIDE elections. It was eventually leaked once it had become controversial, thereby triggering the release of at least parts of the outstanding documentation. What are they up to this year, or is it just secrecy for the sake of it? Relatively major changes have been made to the format of the British Championships without any published background, but that was getting on for three months ago.

[Michael Farthing]

Though PE certainly seems to want to control every aspect of the ECF personally, I suspect it is simply a matter that he hasn't dealt with the minutes and they're sitting in his in-tray. Perhaps the rest of the probably very frustrated board simply don't want to be responsible for souring relationships any further...

It strikes me as either ironic or telling that the strongest action taken by the board recently has been an attempt to bring chess parents under control.

[Marcus Misson]

Aww come on folks.
Stop all this sniping and criticism of the board.
I have heard from a reliable source that when we all go to the April meeting, they'll tell us how busy they've been organising a huge sponsorship deal, and (dare I even suggest) a chess sets for skools project.
As this is surely the case, no one should be held to account for the lack of the minutes that we were assured were going to be produced.

[Carl Hibbard]

The bigger issue is how dead the other forum is so even questions on ECF matters are simply ignored.

[Jonathan Bryant]

The bigger issue is how dead the other forum is....

Actually, I think there are even bigger issues for the ECF’s forum that the fact it is currently Norwegian Blue.

The "Sue Dunham" situation being one of them.

[Roger de Coverly]

The "Sue Dunham" situation being one of them.

"Sue Dunham" was eventually kicked off, so that resolved the direct problem. It doesn't resolve the issue as to who the author was, the general level of comment suggesting someone well informed.

[Jonathan Bryant]

The "Sue Dunham" situation being one of them.

"Sue Dunham" was eventually kicked off, so that resolved the direct problem.

I don't
{Edit: I typo;d with "do" when I originally wrote this post but I meant the opposite}

think the fact that somebody was kicked off a board is particularly important. I don’t think that somebody posting under a false name is a necessarily a big deal either, for that matter.

I *do* think that if you set up a discussion board with a stated 'real names' policy and if the second person to register for that board - before any of your directors, for example - is a sock puppet it may well be considered that there are questions to answer. Especially if that person mostly posts messages that are ludicrously pro the organisation that created the site.

That nobody much cares that the ECF hasn’t given a full account of what happened is the real problem I think. Shows just how low expectations of the governing body are.

[David Sedgwick]

I *do* think that if you set up a discussion board with a stated 'real names' policy and if the second person to register for that board - before any of your directors, for example - is a sock puppet it may well be considered that there are questions to answer. Especially if that person mostly posts messages that are ludicrously pro the organisation that created the site.

That nobody much cares that the ECF hasn’t given a full account of what happened is the real problem I think. Shows just how low expectations of the governing body are.

Alternatively, it shows how unimportant and irrelevant people think the "official" Forum is.

If Carl were to establish a sock puppet to sing his praises on here at every opportunity, lots of people would take him to task when the situation was revealed.

Not that Carl would ever do any such thing, of course.