English Chess Forum

From the other place here:

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/vi ... ?f=4&t=210

Ben Edgell asked and is getting no response - 'How are things progressing with getting these up to date?'

Anyone know?

Previous discussion here and in posts following, as well as no doubt posts preceding.

JustinHorton wrote:Previous discussion here and in posts following, as well as no doubt posts preceding.

I was trying to draw attention and traffic towards Ben's question over there for which there is still no response.

It almost silent there anyway I suppose.

Carl Hibbard wrote:I was trying to draw attention and traffic towards Ben's question over there for which there is still no response.

Oh for sure, I was just making the point that this is not the first time. Or even the first time this year.

Carl Hibbard wrote:It almost silent there anyway I suppose.

It seems to be down today anyway, as does the whole ECF site.

[EDIT: now up again, mostly...]

That's a bit unfair, Justin, it has had a whole post today - admittedly one that's been posted here as well, but still..

Michael Farthing wrote:That's a bit unfair, Justin, it has had a whole post today - admittedly one that's been posted here as well, but still..

Ben has a point over there and yes you are better over here Ben

Carl Hibbard wrote: Ben has a point over there and yes you are better over here Ben

Board minutes are necessary to demonstrate a correctly functioning Board and don't need to be public. As Stewart Reuben noted, what's needed for communication is an announcement that the Board met and discussed or decided on things. The Board meeting next following the AGM is the one where they appoint the numerous managers. I suppose they will have to announce the outcome of that meeting, should there be any changes.

Roger de Coverly wrote:Board minutes are necessary to demonstrate a correctly functioning Board and don't need to be public. As Stewart Reuben noted, what's needed for communication is an announcement that the Board met and discussed or decided on things.

Yes, but swiftly-compiled unoffical minutes or snapshots aren't going to do that. It's far too easy for items to be left out accicentally. Or indeed "accidentally".

I've given up on the other place, so posting here.

The minutes for the meetings of June, July, and September were, I believe, written up in draft form before the AGM. At the AGM we were told that several Directors were working on bringing the minutes up to date. Since then 24 days have past, during which the board have been arguing about who said what, and changing minor details. 24 days with no explanations, no mention of when they might finally be posted online, not so much as a note on the other Forum saying "we're working on it, it'll be done soon."

And the less said about the missing minutes for the board meeting from March, 8 (!!) months ago...

benedgell wrote: Since then 24 days have past, during which the board have been arguing about who said what, and changing minor details.

The Chairman and the Secretary should produce the minutes, and if others don't like them they have an opportunity to say so at the next meeting. Drafting minutes by committee after the event is quite wrong, and will never work.

Whenever I have been Secretary of anything, minutes of last meeting has always been an early item on the agenda. That requires having them to hand.

If the Board insists on being involved in drafting minutes, this should be done at the meeting. Time consuming, yes, but if you don't trust your own Chairman and Secretary to do a proper job there is no alternative.

NickFaulks wrote: The Chairman and the Secretary should produce the minutes, and if others don't like them they have an opportunity to say so at the next meeting. Drafting minutes by committee after the event is quite wrong, and will never work.

The exact nature of the problem remains unclear, despite Ben's attempt as a voter with numerous voting mandates to find out. Certainly the Board have trouble agreeing what should be made public, but whether the confidential version of the Minutes is disputed isn't known.

It's a reason why the new forum on the ECF site itself has fallen rather flat. Although the moderators would protect sensitive directors from direct critics, they still don't post, very possibly because they cannot agree what to say. Explanations for the upheavals to the timetabling of events in the 2015 British remain wanting. Conveniently for those wishing to avoid challenge and discussion, the timetable was announced a few days after the AGM, instead of a few days before it, or even in a summary of the meeting that decided it, if there was one.

I've heard the March minutes still require quite a bit of work before they're ready to be published.

I'm really puzzled what the continuing difficulties can now be. Council took careful note of the sound advice recently given to it::

When Council elects an incomplete Board (as in 2012-13 with no chief executive), or a non-collegial Board (as evidenced in early 2014) or a Board comprised of good people in ill-suited roles, dysfunction results. In the interest of forming a more cohesive team, I consider it a duty on this occasion to respectfully advise Council on its election choices.

so how can there still be problems?

Michael Farthing wrote:I'm really puzzled what the continuing difficulties can now be. Council took careful note of the sound advice recently given to it::

When Council elects an incomplete Board (as in 2012-13 with no chief executive), or a non-collegial Board (as evidenced in early 2014) or a Board comprised of good people in ill-suited roles, dysfunction results. In the interest of forming a more cohesive team, I consider it a duty on this occasion to respectfully advise Council on its election choices.

so how can there still be problems?

Even if we make the assumption that council actually noted anything, that still leaves the issues of tidying up everything from before.

benedgell wrote:I've given up on the other place, so posting here.

Welcome back Ben