Are you able to give a link to the analysis of the answers?Alex Holowczak wrote:[
On the several hundred questionnaires that were filled in at Torquay and online, that I saw and processed.
I thought it had been "lost".
Are you able to give a link to the analysis of the answers?Alex Holowczak wrote:[
On the several hundred questionnaires that were filled in at Torquay and online, that I saw and processed.
We worked out the results, and never got around to publishing a full analysis of each question. That doesn't stop the answers being any less valuable.Roger de Coverly wrote:Are you able to give a link to the analysis of the answers?Alex Holowczak wrote:[
On the several hundred questionnaires that were filled in at Torquay and online, that I saw and processed.
I thought it had been "lost".
I rather think it does. Previous questionnaires had been published in full.Alex Holowczak wrote:
We worked out the results, and never got around to publishing a full analysis of each question. That doesn't stop the answers being any less valuable.
Malcolm Pein, now an ECF Director is in favour of an 9 round Championship. Apart from him, who else?Alex Holowczak wrote: Ironically, one of the things it did say, was that people wanted an 11-round Championship!
The publishing of the results doesn't affect how valuable the answers are, only how confident we can be that they say what Alex says they say.Roger de Coverly wrote:I rather think it does. Previous questionnaires had been published in full.Alex Holowczak wrote:
We worked out the results, and never got around to publishing a full analysis of each question. That doesn't stop the answers being any less valuable.
I think, if you conduct a survey it's a good idea to publish the results - especially if you're going to rely on them later to support a decision. That way you can't be accused (rightly or wrongly) of misinterpreting or making selective use of the results. It's also good to provide feedback.Alex Holowczak wrote:We worked out the results, and never got around to publishing a full analysis of each question. That doesn't stop the answers being any less valuable.
It affects the value obtained from the survey though. eg if kept entirely secret, zero value is obtained from the exercise.IM Jack Rudd wrote:The publishing of the results doesn't affect how valuable the answers are, only how confident we can be that they say what Alex says they say.
I think I'd like that better than a 9-round event.Lee Bullock wrote:ok apologies if this has already been suggested but is it a crazy idea to have 2 rounds in 1 day for the 1st 2 days?
Problem solved. Next issue for me to solve pleaseIM Jack Rudd wrote:I think I'd like that better than a 9-round event.Lee Bullock wrote:ok apologies if this has already been suggested but is it a crazy idea to have 2 rounds in 1 day for the 1st 2 days?
Michael Farthing wrote: ... is sad if you really think that Council (or, indeed, Council members) should not express opinions (should not opine) on operational matters."
It seems likely that the decision to at least consider the move to a 9 day format was taken before the April meeting. One of the items that was put to Council for discussion was the level of financial support for the British Championships. A less secretive organisation would have made Council aware of the structure of the event for which financial support was required.PeterFarr wrote: 1) I agree with Mike that it's an operational decision, and not one for Council.
http://www.hertschesscongress.com/index ... dback-2015Mike Truran wrote: 1. "I seem to recall" isn't really good enough, I'm afraid.
There are parts of the British Championships that those countries let the ECF get on with, and some parts that they don't. These are set out in the most recent Agreement between the Federations in 2007. The relevant parts the ECF can't unilaterally change are:PeterFarr wrote:3) It's called the British Championships. Having the ECF Council decide the format strikes me as inherently unsatisfactory. I would rather see more attempt made to encourage more Scottish, Welsh and Irish participants (don't ask me how, I haven't the faintest idea, but that's the beauty of being an internet forumite).
Complete rubbish.It seems quite clear that the notion that the ECF doesn't need OMOV because Council is sufficiently representative is rejected by some members of the current Board.