It is, but the comparison is to contemporary rather than Soviet Russia. And it's a rather strange comparison coming from somebody who's actually worked for that state's propaganda station.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:27 amto suggest, as Tim has done, that the situation is comparable to Soviet Russia [with Tim presumably casting himself as the chess equivalent of Alexei Navalny] is risible.
Reports from Direct Members' representatives
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Reports from Direct Members' representatives
Last edited by JustinHorton on Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Reports from Direct Members' representatives
What in the name of God is this supposed to be. Sepp Blatter was and is an enormously corrupt individual. Is this actually some kind of appropriate comparison?
Can I add that reproducing abusive emails anonymously is a pretty disreputable practice and say far more about the person who does it - none of it good - than it does about anyone they're seeking to criticise. There's many times and places for anonymity and anoymous sources, and this isn't one of them.
"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
Re: Reports from Direct Members' representatives
I don't normally respond to anything written on this forum. But I'll make an exception for Justin Horton.
Justin, anyone who has worked in the Russian media, as I did for a total of 14 years (5 years for a pro-opposition newspaper, The Moscow Times (2003-08) and 9 years for state-owned organisations, including The Moscow News (2009-12) - as editor-in-chief - and RT.com (2013-17), as a copy editor) knows journalists are not automatons, and we don't necessarily agree politically with the media organisation that we work for.
As editor-in-chief of The Moscow News, I managed to preserve that newspaper's editorial independence for nearly 4 years under President Medvedev, before Putin came back to the Kremlin and our owners, the RIA Novosti state news agency, decided that they had better capitulate and appoint a different editor who would toe the Kremlin line.
I know it's a different country, but it's the same basic principle: Does Malcolm Pein agree with The Telegraph, David Howell agree with The Times or Luke McShane agree with The Spectator? Not necessarily. Even in the political coverage, journalists work for organisations they don't agree with. It's irrelevant - they are journalists, who do a job to the best of their ability, and they work for those media organisations as long as they need to pay the bills, or as long as they can stomach it.
It actually may interest you to know that, along with dozens of my colleagues at RT, I regularly attended opposition demonstrations, risking arrest at the hands of the OMON riot police, alongside supporters of Alexey Navalny, in Moscow.
So please, try to know something about the subject before you pontificate about it.
Justin, anyone who has worked in the Russian media, as I did for a total of 14 years (5 years for a pro-opposition newspaper, The Moscow Times (2003-08) and 9 years for state-owned organisations, including The Moscow News (2009-12) - as editor-in-chief - and RT.com (2013-17), as a copy editor) knows journalists are not automatons, and we don't necessarily agree politically with the media organisation that we work for.
As editor-in-chief of The Moscow News, I managed to preserve that newspaper's editorial independence for nearly 4 years under President Medvedev, before Putin came back to the Kremlin and our owners, the RIA Novosti state news agency, decided that they had better capitulate and appoint a different editor who would toe the Kremlin line.
I know it's a different country, but it's the same basic principle: Does Malcolm Pein agree with The Telegraph, David Howell agree with The Times or Luke McShane agree with The Spectator? Not necessarily. Even in the political coverage, journalists work for organisations they don't agree with. It's irrelevant - they are journalists, who do a job to the best of their ability, and they work for those media organisations as long as they need to pay the bills, or as long as they can stomach it.
It actually may interest you to know that, along with dozens of my colleagues at RT, I regularly attended opposition demonstrations, risking arrest at the hands of the OMON riot police, alongside supporters of Alexey Navalny, in Moscow.
So please, try to know something about the subject before you pontificate about it.
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Reports from Direct Members' representatives
Hi Tim. Don't be telling me about your journalistic independence. I read for instance your pieces praising Malcolm Pein in the magazine owned by Malcolm Pein.
2020 I rather thinkTimWall wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:59 pmanyone who has worked in the Russian media, as I did for a total of 14 years (5 years for a pro-opposition newspaper, The Moscow Times (2003-08) and 9 years for state-owned organisations, including The Moscow News (2009-12) - as editor-in-chief - and RT.com (2013-17)
On the other hand, their columns aren't full of inappropriate attacks on people comparing them to Vladimir Putin and Sepp Blatter, are they? The way you've behaved here draws attention to your own behaviour elsewhere.
"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
Re: Reports from Direct Members' representatives
Thanks to David Sedgwick for alerting the forum readers to the chess.com posting, so that ECF Directors can respond there if they wish.
It's currently the top blog there: https://www.chess.com/blogs
And if you're reading this later, it's here as well: https://www.chess.com/blog/timpeterwall
A few more Silver members' comments have arrived:
Hi Tim,
Am totally with you concerning your take on the meeting...nothing to add...but just wanted you to know you are not alone!!
----
Hi Tim,
I have read your report and sadly I find this all very typical of the ECF council thinking of themselves and not the members! Like you I’m hoping that Over the Board Chess will get back to normal this year. All fingers crossed and toes!
Why are they giving organisers of online events a vote? All the online events are temporary and will go back to like what it was pre-pandemic. You are right that they should be thinking about ways to help Chess Clubs, as they are the backbone of the ECF. Without the Chess Clubs there will be no ECF in the long run!
---
Hi Tim,
Just a quick note to say that I support the positions you set out in your email, for much the same reasons you indicate.
I remember sitting in on a meeting of senior judges discussing financial cuts to the court service. First item on the agenda? Requirement to provide own biscuits in breaks! Strange how people can allow the parochial and trivial to swamp the universal and important because it affects their personal interests ...
Good luck!
----
Hi Tim, Common sense from you, as usual. You have my support.
----
Hi Tim, Re. your email to silver members.
I think you should make it clear to the board that thousands of silver members join the ECF for one thing only and that is to get a recognised grade by the national governing body. To get such a grade requires one to play chess over the board - therefore efforts by the board should be directed to finding ways for over the board chess to start again, that’s the simple fact of life!
I rejoined back in August with no great expectation of over the board chess until October this year. I will need to be convinced to do so this August. If there’s no over the board chess, there’s no point being a member of the ECF.
----
It's currently the top blog there: https://www.chess.com/blogs
And if you're reading this later, it's here as well: https://www.chess.com/blog/timpeterwall
A few more Silver members' comments have arrived:
Hi Tim,
Am totally with you concerning your take on the meeting...nothing to add...but just wanted you to know you are not alone!!
----
Hi Tim,
I have read your report and sadly I find this all very typical of the ECF council thinking of themselves and not the members! Like you I’m hoping that Over the Board Chess will get back to normal this year. All fingers crossed and toes!
Why are they giving organisers of online events a vote? All the online events are temporary and will go back to like what it was pre-pandemic. You are right that they should be thinking about ways to help Chess Clubs, as they are the backbone of the ECF. Without the Chess Clubs there will be no ECF in the long run!
---
Hi Tim,
Just a quick note to say that I support the positions you set out in your email, for much the same reasons you indicate.
I remember sitting in on a meeting of senior judges discussing financial cuts to the court service. First item on the agenda? Requirement to provide own biscuits in breaks! Strange how people can allow the parochial and trivial to swamp the universal and important because it affects their personal interests ...
Good luck!
----
Hi Tim, Common sense from you, as usual. You have my support.
----
Hi Tim, Re. your email to silver members.
I think you should make it clear to the board that thousands of silver members join the ECF for one thing only and that is to get a recognised grade by the national governing body. To get such a grade requires one to play chess over the board - therefore efforts by the board should be directed to finding ways for over the board chess to start again, that’s the simple fact of life!
I rejoined back in August with no great expectation of over the board chess until October this year. I will need to be convinced to do so this August. If there’s no over the board chess, there’s no point being a member of the ECF.
----
-
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:18 pm
Re: Reports from Direct Members' representatives
I think it is not irrelevant to this discussion that on the ECF calendar, the next listed adult OTB event is one organised by the CEO of the ECF.
-
- Posts: 8472
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Reports from Direct Members' representatives
Be fair, Justin. The man has to earn a living.JustinHorton wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:10 pmHi Tim. Don't be telling me about your journalistic independence. I read for instance your pieces praising Malcolm Pein in the magazine owned by Malcolm Pein.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 21321
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Reports from Direct Members' representatives
This is the linkDavid Sedgwick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:22 pmTim has now repeated on Chess.com his initial post in this thread.
https://www.chess.com/blog/timpeterwall ... -officials
(which might be of interest as to what the chess.com audience thinks)
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
-
- Posts: 2075
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
- Location: Harrogate
Re: Reports from Direct Members' representatives
Those of us with longer memories will remember that Mike Truran inherited the CEO role reluctantly after his predecessor was ousted. Had he actively sought the role he could have easily moved into it two years prior to that when there was a year long vacancy. The current chair of the governance committee assumed his role shortly after following the resignation of his predecessor (a man who I believe was seen as a perennial ECF office holder).
At that time the status quo was that ECF directors and other elected officials could hold office as long as they wished but potentially faced re-election every year (with "not this candidate" perennially on the ballot). Since the adoption of the Pearce report the ECF has moved away from this towards three year terms with a maximum of two being served. Those of us with longer memories will recall that while one former executive President did seem to wish to cling to office with limited accountability, generally the ECF board had a substantial turnover.
So Mike Truran and Robert Stern have led substantial reform. We're still in the transition stage and the move to three year terms is throwing up a few technical problems (mid term resignations, vacancies arising when a term limited candidate retires) and as Steve Mann has noted in his public notice to YCA members - a legal loophole where the Regulations have been changed but not the more binding Articles Of Association. So the ECF are forced to iron out the inconsistencies and put them to council for ratification. To blow this up into a) a power grab and b) a suggestion that the ECF are more interested in talking about themselves than promoting chess is unfair in the extreme.
I'd also repeat that thanks to the work of Mike Truran and Robert Stern; one member one vote was put before ECF Council, to the best of my knowledge the only time it ever has been. Council, perhaps unsurprisingly, rejected it, however there was a real opportunity to drive it through. Had the proposal been adopted there would have been a tremendous amount of governance work to do (the articles and bye-laws would have had to have been rewritten from scratch with council needing to pass the changes necessary).
I'll pick up another part of this debate in a separate thread.
At that time the status quo was that ECF directors and other elected officials could hold office as long as they wished but potentially faced re-election every year (with "not this candidate" perennially on the ballot). Since the adoption of the Pearce report the ECF has moved away from this towards three year terms with a maximum of two being served. Those of us with longer memories will recall that while one former executive President did seem to wish to cling to office with limited accountability, generally the ECF board had a substantial turnover.
So Mike Truran and Robert Stern have led substantial reform. We're still in the transition stage and the move to three year terms is throwing up a few technical problems (mid term resignations, vacancies arising when a term limited candidate retires) and as Steve Mann has noted in his public notice to YCA members - a legal loophole where the Regulations have been changed but not the more binding Articles Of Association. So the ECF are forced to iron out the inconsistencies and put them to council for ratification. To blow this up into a) a power grab and b) a suggestion that the ECF are more interested in talking about themselves than promoting chess is unfair in the extreme.
I'd also repeat that thanks to the work of Mike Truran and Robert Stern; one member one vote was put before ECF Council, to the best of my knowledge the only time it ever has been. Council, perhaps unsurprisingly, rejected it, however there was a real opportunity to drive it through. Had the proposal been adopted there would have been a tremendous amount of governance work to do (the articles and bye-laws would have had to have been rewritten from scratch with council needing to pass the changes necessary).
I'll pick up another part of this debate in a separate thread.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
Re: Reports from Direct Members' representatives
Another excellent response from a Silver member arrived this morning. Unlike some contributors to the Forum, I think all the views of ordinary members are useful. A common thread running through about 90-95% of members’ comments is that they think 2 terms, or 6 years, is sufficient before handing on the baton to someone new. One particularly insightful comment was warning of the ‘inertia of incumbency.’
We should remember that we are only custodians of the game, not its owners.
Here is the latest email:
‘Hello Tim,
Thank you very much for your honest and frank feedback on the 24 April meeting. We are lucky to have you sitting through such a frustrating meeting! I like your directness very much!
Firstly, I do support you re a max of 2 consecutive terms – have always felt change is good and needed for ideas.
Secondly, I especially agree about the ECF needing to take a positive lead in trying to be innovative as we enter a new era for otb chess. I am not sure the recent surge in interest for on-line chess necessarily translates into those new players then joining otb clubs in large numbers.
My experience is many clubs want to change, but don’t know how to and what to do. So what would help might be regular new ideas on what has worked in clubs and therefore might be worth replicating. And particularly for juniors. For example, I have been in contact with a Kent club whose junior section meets at 5pm on a Friday, with sections for tuition etc and then at 6.30pm (I think), everyone takes part in a speed tournament and the keener and older ones can stay on for the adult club meeting from 7pm. Their underlying principle is lots going on, including demonstrations etc. They apparently have 60 juniors currently and their development programme has been incredibly successful.
Keep up your good work!’
We should remember that we are only custodians of the game, not its owners.
Here is the latest email:
‘Hello Tim,
Thank you very much for your honest and frank feedback on the 24 April meeting. We are lucky to have you sitting through such a frustrating meeting! I like your directness very much!
Firstly, I do support you re a max of 2 consecutive terms – have always felt change is good and needed for ideas.
Secondly, I especially agree about the ECF needing to take a positive lead in trying to be innovative as we enter a new era for otb chess. I am not sure the recent surge in interest for on-line chess necessarily translates into those new players then joining otb clubs in large numbers.
My experience is many clubs want to change, but don’t know how to and what to do. So what would help might be regular new ideas on what has worked in clubs and therefore might be worth replicating. And particularly for juniors. For example, I have been in contact with a Kent club whose junior section meets at 5pm on a Friday, with sections for tuition etc and then at 6.30pm (I think), everyone takes part in a speed tournament and the keener and older ones can stay on for the adult club meeting from 7pm. Their underlying principle is lots going on, including demonstrations etc. They apparently have 60 juniors currently and their development programme has been incredibly successful.
Keep up your good work!’
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Reports from Direct Members' representatives
They are very useful, if they have names attached to them. Without them, rather less so.
"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
Re: Reports from Direct Members' representatives
Dear Justin, every one of the ECF members who took the trouble to write to me has views that are just as valid as yours. In many cases, more so.
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Reports from Direct Members' representatives
My views come with a name attached. What names are attached to these views?
"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
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Reports from Direct Members' representatives
Once again, there are often reasons why anonymity is acceptable but I cannot see how any of them apply here. We have no idea of the provenance of these emails and to produce them here, anonymously, as you have done is a pretty dirty way to play a campaign.
"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