Thread withdrawn

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Heh. I just noticed Carl's using the same avatar as me (the dragon one)!

[Paul Cooksey]

It is difficult to know whether to comment on such threads isn't it?

Generally I am very pleased that the ECF have managed to get funding from the chess trust for a Development Officer and appointed someone who is well respected, notwithstanding my reservation about the likelihood of success. But I was a bit reluctant to say so in the other thread with other posters hinting at controversy in the procurement process again.

I am completely happy with Tim's decision to ask the governance committee to investigate and to make that request public. I think this is appropriate use of their time, I respect their competence, and I generally do not support the position that these things are better resolved behind closed doors. Justice needs to be seen to be done.

I can offer Carl some reassurance that I did not read Tim's complaint as an attack on his integrity. I read it as a complaint about the decision made to appoint him, not Carl himself. Maybe a bit unwise to respond in the terms he did though, since the one person who should not really know all the relevant facts is the candidate themselves.

While I maintain Justin remains wrong on all matters of substance, you can't criticise his ability to argue. So if Carl wanted to be contribute to this community, I'd suggest starting with an easier argument. Maybe convincing Roger game fee was a bad system, for example.

[JustinHorton]

.

While I maintain Justin remains wrong on all matters of substance, you can't criticise his ability to argue.

To be able to argue does require an argument we can examine: this is what we are lacking here. Presently there is nothing of substance and nothing to be wrong about (as you understand very well).

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Questions relating to the appointment process (and what happened when) should, in my opinion, be directed at the ECF officials who oversaw that process, not at those who applied for the position."

I agree.

[Andrew Zigmond]

The bone of contention here appears to be the date of the `Credo`. Is it not possible that Carl Portman submitted the document at his interview to show how he would get the ball rolling should he be appointed and after being successful the document became official. If he hadn't been selected for the role it could have simply gone in the bin.

I can understand Tim's anger about the process, particularly as it follows so closely after the confusion over the junior directorate vacancy last year but I'm not sure anything is actionable. I don't see anything in his post that could be considered a slight on Carl as the successful candidate and Carl's jibe as to what Tim Wall does for chess is somewhat uncalled for; I know Tim slightly through mutual friends and while we don't agree on everything he is an experienced and active organiser and will no doubt continue to be.

Personally I would like to be able to move on from this as quickly as possible and for the ECF and Carl Portman to put hard strategies to develop chess in place.

[Angus French]

... Is it not possible that Carl Portman submitted the document at his interview...

Given the text starts "I am delighted to have taken up the post of the Development Officer for the English Chess Federation..." that would have been forward, no?

I wonder if "September" was typed, maybe at the end of September or the start of October, when "October" was meant? Possibly it's significant that 13 October (rather than 13 September) is the day after the AGM.

Also, there is a complaints procedure and the Governance Committee play no part in it.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Given the text starts "I am delighted to have taken up the post of the Development Officer for the English Chess Federation..." that would have been forward, no?

Not necessarily, if it was understood that the document wouldn't be published if he was unsuccessful and even it was it would just be completely irrelevant.

[Chris Goodall]

Well, that was a great start.

If people want to snipe from the wings I say this. Get in the ring. What are you doing to promote our game? It is so easy to criticise. It takes no skill, and very little effort.

There are two kinds of chess organiser. The mystifiers, and the demystifiers. The kind who want their job to look difficult, and the kind who want it to look easy.

If you make your job look too easy, you'll never be a "professional" (or "unemployed person" as they're known among the unchessed). If you make it look too difficult, you'll never get any more volunteers coming forward, which will leave you doing more of the work, and so on in a vicious cycle that is great for your ego and your bank balance, but is the opposite of "developing chess".

I'd hoped that the unsuccessful candidacy of Tim "volunteers are inward-looking and resistant to change" Wall meant that the ECF had found someone more of the "demystify" school of thought. Apparently not.

"What are YOU doing to promote our game, eh?" is a great virtue-signal, and is also exactly why no-one bothers promoting our game. Yes, you're probably a strong favourite in a chess-promoting contest when you're literally being paid to promote chess. That is not an achievement.

[John Moore]

Is it me or does Carl Portman's stuff sound a lot like Charlie Storey. By the way, that is not necessarily a criticism.

[Chris Goodall]

Is it me or does Carl Portman's stuff sound a lot like Charlie Storey. By the way, that is not necessarily a criticism.

It's better English, but there is the same note of menace. "My chess CV is bigger than yours, so you'll give me some respect or we can sort it out face to face."

[Roger Lancaster]

I don't intend to get involved in the personal stuff but agree that it seems a reasonable question, to which there may or may not be a reasonable answer, to enquire why the acceptance letter apparently pre-dated the appointment. That question doesn't seem to have been answered.

[JustinHorton]

I am at least vaguely interested to know if it got answered on Saturday.

[Paul Cooksey]

No explicit discussion on this point that I recall. We got a confirmation on the academy tender in this year's papers. You might want to set a diary memo for this time next year...

[Brian Towers]

Generally I am very pleased that the ECF have managed to get funding from the chess trust for a Development Officer

I think there is your answer.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Oh no! It looks like I've caught the aphorism bug from Carl!

[JustinHorton]

You're supposed to attribute it to somebody though