Think not what the ECF can do for you, but what you can do for the ECF

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Mick Norris
Posts: 7425
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Think not what the ECF can do for you, but what you can do for the ECF

Post by Mick Norris » Sat May 25, 2019 5:19 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 3:49 pm
i guess the gist of this argument is that Adam Raoof is not organising enough events and should shut up about OMOV until he reaches the necessary number.
:lol:
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1704
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Think not what the ECF can do for you, but what you can do for the ECF

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Sat May 25, 2019 5:57 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 3:49 pm
i guess the gist of this argument is that Adam Raoof is not organising enough events and should shut up about OMOV until he reaches the necessary number.
I haven't the foggiest idea what Adam Raoof's position on OMOV is, or what he thinks about anything else for that matter. The point is that the tournaments he organises entitle him to a seat at council. There is no reason why anybody else contributing to this thread can't do the same.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 423
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: Think not what the ECF can do for you, but what you can do for the ECF

Post by Paul Cooksey » Sat May 25, 2019 6:08 pm

Can anyone advise me how to reply to that post without Andrew thinking I am calling him an idiot again?

Mick Norris
Posts: 7425
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Think not what the ECF can do for you, but what you can do for the ECF

Post by Mick Norris » Sat May 25, 2019 6:08 pm

Adam Raoof wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 7:35 am
Hok Yin Stephen Chiu wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 11:33 pm

I doubt we can revolutionize local chess in one fair swoop, but, how about start by widening the reach and voices at Council?
One member one vote. No block votes. No votes for leagues or counties or tournament organisers. No proxies. No taxation without representation.
I don't think Council would vote for that :wink:
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

NickFaulks
Posts: 5043
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Think not what the ECF can do for you, but what you can do for the ECF

Post by NickFaulks » Sat May 25, 2019 6:10 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 3:32 pm
One is the failure of the anti council lobby to understand
You always speak in some kind of code which I cannot crack. Who are the "anti council lobby"? Are you talking about members of the Board? I genuinely don't know.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 6337
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Think not what the ECF can do for you, but what you can do for the ECF

Post by JustinHorton » Sat May 25, 2019 6:13 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 5:57 pm
. There is no reason why anybody else contributing to this thread can't do the same.
This is patently untrue
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1704
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Think not what the ECF can do for you, but what you can do for the ECF

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Sat May 25, 2019 6:24 pm

Mick Norris wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 6:08 pm
Adam Raoof wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 7:35 am
Hok Yin Stephen Chiu wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 11:33 pm

I doubt we can revolutionize local chess in one fair swoop, but, how about start by widening the reach and voices at Council?
One member one vote. No block votes. No votes for leagues or counties or tournament organisers. No proxies. No taxation without representation.
I don't think Council would vote for that :wink:
Thanks Mick, I scanned that part of the thread too quickly. Playing devil's advocate here but how would scrutiny and oversight be provided? I'm not entirely comparing like with like here but I am a member of the ECF, the Labour Party and Leeds Building Society and the one I feel most engaged with is the one I have the least direct vote with.
NickFaulks wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 6:10 pm
Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 3:32 pm
One is the failure of the anti council lobby to understand
You always speak in some kind of code which I cannot crack. Who are the "anti council lobby"? Are you talking about members of the Board? I genuinely don't know.
I was referring to those people who want council abolished completely rather than reformed.
JustinHorton wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 6:13 pm
Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 5:57 pm
. There is no reason why anybody else contributing to this thread can't do the same.
This is patently untrue
Fair enough Justin, it was a bit of a sweeping statement. We're drifting away from my original point which is that council is hardly a closed shop and it's not that difficult to get a seat on it if you're that desperate.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1795
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Think not what the ECF can do for you, but what you can do for the ECF

Post by Michael Farthing » Sat May 25, 2019 6:32 pm

Well the only candidate I can think of meeting Andrew's description is perhaps Chris Fegan who has argued (as I recall) that the membership should directly elect the Board and that Council should be abolished. Apologies Chris if I haven't got that right. I did once ask Chris to elaborate on here but I think he thought I was trying to goad him (I wasn't, honest - I was genuinely curious). Anyway, that was a long time ago and our relationship has improved since then so I'll try repeating the invitation.

Mick Norris
Posts: 7425
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Think not what the ECF can do for you, but what you can do for the ECF

Post by Mick Norris » Sat May 25, 2019 6:39 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 6:24 pm
Mick Norris wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 6:08 pm
Adam Raoof wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 7:35 am
One member one vote. No block votes. No votes for leagues or counties or tournament organisers. No proxies. No taxation without representation.
I don't think Council would vote for that :wink:
Thanks Mick, I scanned that part of the thread too quickly. Playing devil's advocate here but how would scrutiny and oversight be provided? I'm not entirely comparing like with like here but I am a member of the ECF, the Labour Party and Leeds Building Society and the one I feel most engaged with is the one I have the least direct vote with.
Ok Andrew, I wasn't actually responding to Paul's comment, but I did realise you'd missed Adam's post; I'd politely suggest you need to calm down a bit and also that I think there's no consensus on the right structure so we're stuck with the ECF Council we've got

I'd like to see the Member reps get more votes, but given the flak they take, I wonder

I haven't personally the time or inclination to get a vote on Council; I've given up MCF Council too, and feel better for it :)
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1795
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Think not what the ECF can do for you, but what you can do for the ECF

Post by Michael Farthing » Sat May 25, 2019 7:54 pm

Mick Norris wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 6:39 pm
I'd like to see the Member reps get more votes, but given the flak they take, I wonder
Well there are two ways of doing that:

1. Stick with the same number of reps and increase their individual votes.

I don't think that is a good idea. OK, 6 votes is relatively mild in the world of Council vote acquisition, but 12 (for example) is begining to get uncomfortable.

2. Add more direct reps and keep the individual allocation of votes the same.

The real problem with that is that the volunteers don't come forward and then it is up to the Board to appoint. I'm not very happy with that because (even if the Boarrd successfully finds someone) it puts the Board in the dangerous situation of being accused of favouring its own supporters. This would have been a bit nit-picking when the posts only carried 1 vote but is now a more serious consideration. And there might be a Board where, to the danger of accusation, could be added the will so to do.

Flak is part of the job, as it is for the Board. I haven't actually received much, though more than usual this April. But actually, some of it was justified and, were I Thomas, the Fat Controller would have said to me, "You shall go to your shed and consider how you can improve".

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18056
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Think not what the ECF can do for you, but what you can do for the ECF

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sat May 25, 2019 8:00 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 7:54 pm
2. Add more direct reps and keep the individual allocation of votes the same.
Having representatives on Council for specific interest groups might be desirable. Possible interest groups could be titled players, female players and chess trainers. I'd suggest arbiters as well were it not that the CAA are already represented by virtue of being corporate members and that several existing Council members are also arbiters.

John Reyes
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Think not what the ECF can do for you, but what you can do for the ECF

Post by John Reyes » Mon May 27, 2019 12:34 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 1:11 pm
Hok Yin Stephen Chiu wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 12:46 pm
Yes, that is what I think would in the short-to-long run be a good thing for bringing more voices to Council.
In general, people fall into three categories:
1. People who prioritise ECF Council meetings and will go to them come hell or high water
2. People who will go to ECF Council meetings if they're available, and if they're not they'll nominate a proxy
3. People who couldn't care less about ECF Council meetings.

This is for reasons nothing to do with chess, and even if you changed the rules on delegate positions/proxies, people will still broadly fall into those three categories. You won't get new voices flooding Council, you'll just get more unused votes. It's not clear to me why that's a democratic improvement.

In general, people fall into three categories:
1. People who prioritise ECF Council meetings and will go to them come hell or high water
2. People who will go to ECF Council meetings if they're available, and if they're not they'll nominate a proxy
3. People who couldn't care less about ECF Council meetings.

I'm number 1, but I feel that the common people does have a say at the ECf and not people who abused there votes.
Ben Edgill and myself are people who will votes the way of the members and not to speak to the people
Any postings on here represent my personal views only

Post Reply