Emergency Board Meeting - Draft Minutes

[Sean Hewitt]

The Directors also (according to the draft minutes) spoke up on issues outside the original agenda which they themselves had set. That’s a further indication of a lack of clarity.

You've been down this rabbit hole before Angus. It's rather mischievous to try to make something of it again when you've already had it answered twice.

[JustinHorton]

come to think of it, Agon never had a website

Thinking about it, wasn't there some sketchy website that didn't actually tell you anything?

[PeterFarr]

come to think of it, Agon never had a website

Thinking about it, wasn't there some sketchy website that didn't actually tell you anything?

Yes, actually its's here http://www.agonlimited.com - my fault for lazy googling, sorry about that.

[John McKenna]

That's rudely broken the trance of a totally transcendental entity.
Not a bad website - the worst ones tell you everything... except what you really want to know.

[PeterFarr]

come to think of it, Agon never had a website

Thinking about it, wasn't there some sketchy website that didn't actually tell you anything?

Yes, actually its's here http://www.agonlimited.com - my fault for lazy googling, sorry about that.

Edit: at risk of going miles off-topic, this Agon website repeats the claim of 600 million chess-players worldwide, and says that this is comparable to the number of Facebook users - although actually Facebook claims 1.23bn monthly users, presumably based on some actual verifiable monitoring, whereas the 600 million comes from er....

[Ian Thompson]

come to think of it, Agon never had a website

Thinking about it, wasn't there some sketchy website that didn't actually tell you anything?

Yes, actually its's here http://www.agonlimited.com - my fault for lazy googling, sorry about that.

It has photographs of 45 famous, powerful or successful people (according to them) who it says play chess. That's interesting, but it's a pity they aren't named as I only recognised about 20 of them (including one who died almost 7 years ago).

[Jonathan Rogers]

Whether this means the confidence motion in AP should have happened is an open question, since the substantive grounds for it remain unclear, in spite of all the speculation in this thread. We have heard nothing from the Board members involved, presumably because they have made a collective decision to not engage here. Thus, we simply don't know whether it's all about Agon / FIDE and AP v NS or if it's more about AP's general style / behaviour / inter-action with the Board.

The grounds for the motion and the way that board members voted are clearly articulated here.

I agree with Peter that this summary certainly does not help us to work out what is going on. Most of the complaints listed here are about internal matters; yet meanwhile there is a huge row going on about AP's external links and dealings. So, is the present crisis basically about the former or the latter? If you like, Sean, you could always contribute by summarising the reasons of the Directors who voted against AP - or just your own views, if you prefer - in less than 200 words? (Always a valuable discipline)

[Sean Hewitt]

If you like, Sean, you could always contribute by summarising the reasons of the Directors who voted against AP - or just your own views, if you prefer

Thanks for the opportunity Jonathan, but I wouldn't presuppose to talk or write on someone else's behalf. My reasons for voting the way that I did are clearly articulated in the draft minutes as, I believe are the reasons of the other board members. One only has to read them, surely, to understand that there were many separate issues.

[Jonathan Rogers]

If you like, Sean, you could always contribute by summarising the reasons of the Directors who voted against AP - or just your own views, if you prefer

Thanks for the opportunity Jonathan, but I wouldn't presuppose to talk or write on someone else's behalf. My reasons for voting the way that I did are clearly articulated in the draft minutes as, I believe are the reasons of the other board members. One only has to read them, surely, to understand that there were many separate issues.

Well, yes, but some might say too many. Do lots of little things really suffice?

[Sean Hewitt]

Well, yes, but some might say too many.

Too many indeed. That's the point.

Do lots of little things really suffice?

Little? Really??

[Jonathan Rogers]

Well, yes, but some might say too many.

Too many indeed. That's the point.

Well, if you want other people to understand what it's all about, give them a few big things and not the whole list of twenty.

Do lots of little things really suffice?

Little? Really??

Well, I am sure there are plenty of big things ... but I actually think it would help if the big "domestic" issues were spelt out. Every discussion about this at the recent 4NCL weekend revolved around AP, MP, Short and AGON, and no one seemed to advert to any of the domestic issues. They don't seem to stick in the mind, even though they are there in the minutes, which most people had read. There is no mention of any of them in CHESS.* Thus my invitation to summarise the really big ones for us.

* Not of course that one looks at English chess magazines for a full and impartial account of such things

[Mike Gunn]

(A comment on what Jonathan, Justin and Angus have been saying):

When I was covering the duties of the CEO last year I was contacted on several occasions by people who had complaints or contentious issues they wanted discussed by the board. The board would discuss the matter (various opinions being expressed) and then somebody would propose that we do something (or nothing). (At this stage there would be further discussion, counter-proposals inroduced etc.) Finally a vote would be taken. Often I was then asked by the person who originated the request: why had the board taken the particular decision it did? I often found it difficult to answer that question, because there was no single (unified) reason for the decision taken. Democratic decision making is often (usually?) like this, whether the body is a board of directors, a council or any other body which debates issues in a democratic fashion and then votes on what it should do. As Sean says: you have the facts.

Peter, I'm sure the ECF would appreciate any constructive comments you have for improving the website. At the time the new membership scheme was being introduced we did consider some proposals from professional organisations but we finally decided we couldn't afford the cost.

[Jonathan Rogers]

(A comment on what Jonathan, Justin and Angus have been saying):

When I was covering the duties of the CEO last year I was contacted on several occasions by people who had complaints or contentious issues they wanted discussed by the board. The board would discuss the matter (various opinions being expressed) and then somebody would propose that we do something (or nothing). (At this stage there would be further discussion, counter-proposals inroduced etc.) Finally a vote would be taken. Often I was then asked by the person who originated the request: why had the board taken the particular decision it did? I often found it difficult to answer that question, because there was no single (unified) reason for the decision taken. Democratic decision making is often (usually?) like this, whether the body is a board of directors, a council or any other body which debates issues in a democratic fashion and then votes on what it should do. As Sean says: you have the facts.

Peter, I'm sure the ECF would appreciate any constructive comments you have for improving the website. At the time the new membership scheme was being introduced we did consider some proposals from professional organisations but we finally decided we couldn't afford the cost.

Mike, it does not look good if people agree on the same course of actions for separate reasons. It works for elections, of course, but only because reasons are not expected to be given. But seeking to persuade a President to resign seems to be the sort of action which is sufficiently important that one would expect the movers to have a reasonably common set of complaints.

[Matt Mackenzie]

John - I detest the phrase "punching above our weight " - it's an excuse for all sorts of spurious drivel and nonsensical actions, up to and including getting unnecessarily involved in conflicts in far away places.

Yes give our security council place to India, Brazil or whoever. I don't see this as a decline in the UK so much as a re-alignment to a more realistic view of ourselves.

Indeed, and recent events illustrate this all too starkly. As if Putin is going to give a flying fart what Cameron and Hague say, FFS

[Paul McKeown]

Indeed, and recent events illustrate this all too starkly. As if Putin is going to give a flying fart what Cameron and Hague say, FFS

I would suggest that what is said is fairly immaterial, except perhaps for what is said frankly and in private. What is done, though, rather than said, is quite different. If Polish military aircraft ended up stationed in Lviv, British tanks in Kiev, French warships were tied up alongside in Odessa, and Ukrainian sovereignty were placed under the protections of NATO's Article 5, then Russia would pay very close attention indeed. Possibly Putin would be deposed for such a visible and embarrassing miscalculation. Of course, this is rather unlikely to happen, as whilst the Polish cavalry would certainly have the balls for it, it seems unlikely that Cameron and Hague would.