Andrew, I understand you are quite young. Dare to dream.There are really only three practical ways OMOV could work. Roger has noted one above where the drawbacks are obvious..............
April 2016 Council meeting
Re: April 2016 Council meeting
AZ:
Re: April 2016 Council meeting
Prof DR wrote
As always David, these days, I judge the ECF on how it listens to it most annoying but most important advocate.And it makes me laugh yet louder, accompanied by snorts of derision, when I read the pompous pronouncements of some clown who believes these matters have been addressed only in the time he has given to this pox hole. The technical details were described, argued over, and ground into the sh!t more than six years ago. By me. By others. By RdC. Such is the total uselessness of this place that its inhabitants assume discussions must be revisited on a weekly basis, else the memory shelf-life degrades entirely
-
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Re: April 2016 Council meeting
As you wrote "advocate" rather than "critic", that certainly eliminates at least one candidate.its most annoying but most important advocate
-
- Posts: 2069
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
- Location: Morecambe, Europe
Re: April 2016 Council meeting
Your memory of the meeting, Roger, is clearly different from mine. Actually, I didn't notice you there and, rather strangely, I don't think you made any oral contribution, but clearly you must have been there to have such a clear memory of the shnanigins. (no idea how to spell that word, I only usually say it)Roger de Coverly wrote: As Ben's report notes, a member of Council attempted to raise this topic at the recent meeting. This was pushed into the absolutely elsewhere of "Any Other Business" which has a low chance of being discussed.
However, thinking about proper procedure in a meeting:
OMOV was not on the agenda. The Board had brought forward no discussion of this.
No requisitionists had brought forward a motion either (though there was a motion on the agenda about transparent voting and one about quality control).
Consequently, following normal practice, such a matter should be raised in Any Other Business.
The individual concerned attempted to raise the matter in a totally unrelated matter and had to be told several times that AOB was the correct place. He continued to argue with the chair, demanding that the chair should give reassurances on behalf of the Board. As a consequence of this (and other actions in the meeting) a lot of time was lost and the effect of this was that the two properly submitted motions referred to above could not be discussed. Ironic really, as both were partly sponsored by one of his chief mates and it might be assumed he was in favour of them both.
I felt particularly disappointed by the failure to reach the transparent voting motion which to my mind would have gone a long way to correct the perception (and in some cases perhaps the fact) that large proxy holders can manipulate Council.
-
- Posts: 1235
- Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Hertfordshire
Re: April 2016 Council meeting
The Board needs to recognise that the ECF is a membership organisation and that in exchange for paying an annual subscription it is not unreasonable that members should expect to be able to exert influence on the way it is run by their individual votes.
The technology exists for members to register votes electronically but it requires the will of the Board to explore how best such a system might be used appropriately and effectively. The second obstacle that the Boards need to address is the limited skills and capacity available within the ECF to use computer technology effectively.
It surprises me that the ECF Board have not appointed an IT manager to oversee the website, grading and running of the Office computer systems.
The technology exists for members to register votes electronically but it requires the will of the Board to explore how best such a system might be used appropriately and effectively. The second obstacle that the Boards need to address is the limited skills and capacity available within the ECF to use computer technology effectively.
It surprises me that the ECF Board have not appointed an IT manager to oversee the website, grading and running of the Office computer systems.
-
- Posts: 21301
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: April 2016 Council meeting
That in itself may be a contentious statement. Voting rights are structured on the basis that chess organisations are the controlling force with voting power proportionate to chess activity. These organisations allowed the participation of individuals in their events provided the individuals have paid annual fees to the ECF. Voting rights in exchange for these fees are extremely limited.Michael Flatt wrote:The Board needs to recognise that the ECF is a membership organisation
As it currently stands, the evidence suggests that the will of the Board to do this isn't present. It isn't clear that it's the will of the current members of Council either.Michael Flatt wrote:The technology exists for members to register votes electronically but it requires the will of the Board to explore how best such a system might be used appropriately and effectively.
Current systems seem to work reasonably well, but the Warwick problems with the commentary suggests need for improvement in handling new challenges. Developing a slicker means of getting grading data into place is another problem looking for a solution.Michael Flatt wrote:It surprises me that the ECF Board have not appointed a IT manager to oversee the website, grading and running of the Office computer systems.
-
- Posts: 8453
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: April 2016 Council meeting
Yes, you would think that. However, Malcolm was very clear that his candidate would not take the job ( or he would not ask them to? ) unless the position came with a vote on the Board. That was when my antennae started to tingle.Andrew Zigmond wrote: I'm sure the board would happily grant them a measure of autonomy and invite them to attend board meetings where required.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Re: April 2016 Council meeting
The slides used at the Finance Council meeting are now up on the ECF website.
-
- Posts: 8453
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: April 2016 Council meeting
I did not. This is a major decision with serious consequences both ways which have not been thought through. It is not as simple as "transparent good, opaque bad", the basis on which it would have been presented at the meeting.Michael Farthing wrote: I felt particularly disappointed by the failure to reach the transparent voting motion
I hope that Governance will produce comments on this issue ( otherwise what are they there for? ) in good time for proper consideration ahead of a vote at the AGM.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 10329
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: April 2016 Council meeting
Normally speaking, whether it gets to a vote depends on where it is on the Agenda - I'm not sure how contentious the AGM will be given that some candidates will be standing for the usual 1 year term, some for 2 and some for 3 - it also depends on what the "anti-nexus" are planning - if the elections prove straightforward (e.g. no laborious card voting), there might be more time for the rest of the AGM agendaNickFaulks wrote:I did not. This is a major decision with serious consequences both ways which have not been thought through. It is not as simple as "transparent good, opaque bad", the basis on which it would have been presented at the meeting.Michael Farthing wrote: I felt particularly disappointed by the failure to reach the transparent voting motion
I hope that Governance will produce comments on this issue ( otherwise what are they there for? ) in good time for proper consideration ahead of a vote at the AGM.
Any postings on here represent my personal views
-
- Posts: 2069
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
- Location: Morecambe, Europe
Re: April 2016 Council meeting
Nick and I have talked about this (briefly and goof-naturedly) face-to-face.NickFaulks wrote:I did not. This is a major decision with serious consequences both ways which have not been thought through. It is not as simple as "transparent good, opaque bad", the basis on which it would have been presented at the meeting.Michael Farthing wrote: I felt particularly disappointed by the failure to reach the transparent voting motion
I hope that Governance will produce comments on this issue ( otherwise what are they there for? ) in good time for proper consideration ahead of a vote at the AGM.
Nick brings his FIDE experience to the table, and I see his point about it all, but on practical terms I think the ECF is a quite different typeof organisation.
As I understand Nick's view it centres on the ability of important folk to dictate to lesser folk how they should vote. Thus, Mike Truran might say to me "Don't use your Lancaster and Morecambe vote to support motion x or I won't make you ECF Chief Aardvark." Nick has a fear (and I'm not wanting to make it look flippant because of my flippant example) that such pressure would be worse than any beneficial effect of my home league knowing what I was doing. However, I believe that the difference between the organisations is not that we are necessarily less corrupt, but that our nature makes corruption that much harder: at the end of the day Mike can only offer a very few jobs and still has to get them passed by his Board. Even more significant is that basically he can't offer me any job that gives me money, or, indeed, much status (Cos Andrew Zigmond has already got that one).*
Maybe I have not expressed all Nick's concerns - but he'll no doubt come back on it!
*Oh my oh my oh my. Andrew's trying to give that up. No Mike no! I don't want it! I don't want it! I don't want it! I want to stay in one piece. I'm scared of Martin Carpenter.
[Edited to remove the use of an unacceptable and obscene word!]
[And edited again for the even more humiliating mistake of writing 'know' instead of 'no'!]
Last edited by Michael Farthing on Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Re: April 2016 Council meeting
Don't EVER call me Mick!
-
- Posts: 7173
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Re: April 2016 Council meeting
As you wish MickeyMike Truran wrote:Don't EVER call me Mick!
-
- Posts: 2069
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
- Location: Morecambe, Europe
Re: April 2016 Council meeting
I am mortified. My only explanation is that my brain was led astray by the proximity of a number of Nicks! It is now corrected.Mike Truran wrote:Don't EVER call me Mick!
Should anyone dare to call me any thing other than Michael they get very short change, so I fully understand.
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: April 2016 Council meeting
About a farthing?Michael Farthing wrote: Should anyone dare to call me any thing other than Michael they get very short change
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com