Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
-
John Upham
- Posts: 7233
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
- Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Post
by John Upham » Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:46 pm
Chris Fegan wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:42 pm
J T Melsom wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:41 pm
'If elected as Chair of the Governance Committee next month then I would draw up proposals for OMOV and bring them to the April 2022 ECF Council meeting for consideration'.
Chris why do you need to be elected to do this?
Because the current Chair of Governance will not
Are we aware of the objections to OMOV?
Clearly the Taliban would not be keen so what are the objectors worried about?
Last edited by John Upham on Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
-
J T Melsom
- Posts: 1295
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:12 pm
Post
by J T Melsom » Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:49 pm
But OMOV isn't explicitly mentioned in your manifesto is it? How can you be sure its a priority for the wider membership rather than a niche idea?
-
Chris Fegan
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 11:31 am
Post
by Chris Fegan » Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:51 pm
J T Melsom wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:49 pm
But OMOV isn't explicitly mentioned in your manifesto is it? How can you be sure its a priority for the wider membership rather than a niche idea?
I have not published a manifesto
-
John Upham
- Posts: 7233
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
- Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Post
by John Upham » Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:52 pm
J T Melsom wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:49 pm
How can you be sure its a priority for the wider membership rather than a niche idea?
Why not ask the membership to vote on such a matter?
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
-
Andrew Zigmond
- Posts: 2075
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
- Location: Harrogate
Post
by Andrew Zigmond » Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:53 pm
OMOV has been rearing its head for as long as I can remember. The only time it has ever been on the Council agenda as a formal motion was under the leadership of Mike Truran and Robert Stern. The way it was presented might not have been ideal (some council members though they were being asked for a preferred system of council reform from an option of three, rather than a series of indicative votes) but the opportunity to vote OMOV through was there.
I'm rather at a loss to understand why it has to be the Chairman Of Governance who puts it before Council. Any requisitionists can do so and those within the board who are in favour could easily move a motion every year. The role of the Chairman of Governance would be to revise the bye-laws and other constitutional changes necessary for OMOV - the bit of heavy lifting OMOV proponents expect somebody else to do for them.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
-
J T Melsom
- Posts: 1295
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:12 pm
Post
by J T Melsom » Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:56 pm
Chris
Forgive me, I meant the election address, which seems sufficiently similar to me.
John
The electorate are welcome to decide on OMOV proposals as and when they are produced, but they don't need Chris to hold the post of Chair of Governance for proposals to be considered, and the Chair of Governance shouldn't see his election as a justification to prioritise OMOV at the expense of other things.
-
Angus French
- Posts: 2153
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Post
by Angus French » Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:01 pm
I'm confused. OMOV for what? Under discussion were the members' reps and how good a job they're doing of representing their constituents... and... the members' reps are currently elected by OMOV (and maybe this hasn't worked so well...).
Last edited by Angus French on Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
JustinHorton
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Post
by JustinHorton » Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:03 pm
John Upham wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:46 pm
Are we aware of the objections to OMOV?
Clearly the Taliban would not be keen so what are the objectors worried about?
What a remarkably silly posting even by your current standards
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
Roger de Coverly
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Post
by Roger de Coverly » Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:04 pm
J T Melsom wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:56 pm
The electorate are welcome to decide on OMOV proposals as and when they are produced,
The issue came up in the days of the short lived official forum. What we didn't see was any form of oven ready proposal even at the simple level that some or all Directors would be elected by individual members, but Council would do everything else. The danger would be that only a handful of people would be bothered to vote as witnessed in the recent one man, two votes election for the Silver reps.
-
JustinHorton
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Post
by JustinHorton » Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:09 pm
The thing is that what's really going on is less One Member One Vote than One Federation One Malcolm.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
Paul Cooksey
- Posts: 1525
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm
Post
by Paul Cooksey » Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:11 pm
JustinHorton wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:09 pm
The thing is that what's really going on is less One Member One Vote than One Federation One Malcolm.
That joke is One Malcolm One Vote, surely!
-
John Upham
- Posts: 7233
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
- Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Post
by John Upham » Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:17 pm
Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:04 pm
The issue came up in the days of the short lived official forum. What we didn't see was any form of oven ready proposal even at the simple level that some or all Directors would be elected by individual members, but Council would do everything else. The danger would be that only a handful of people would be bothered to vote as witnessed in the recent one man, two votes election for the Silver reps.
It might be the case that if OMOV were to be implemented then members would be more motivated to vote. They are used to having almost zero influence.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
-
JustinHorton
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Post
by JustinHorton » Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:20 pm
Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:11 pm
JustinHorton wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:09 pm
The thing is that what's really going on is less One Member One Vote than One Federation One Malcolm.
That joke is One Malcolm One Vote, surely!
One Malcolm Many Votes more like
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
JustinHorton
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Post
by JustinHorton » Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:35 pm
Incidentally can I suggest that if anybody wishes to discuss OMOV they may like to start a new thread for the purpose? This thread was plainly started to talk about not that, but the remarkable conduct of Members' representatives, and there is no obviously good reason for that subject to be buried by another one.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
Joseph Conlon
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:18 pm
Post
by Joseph Conlon » Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:50 pm
Why were members' representatives allowed to be a different class from the body they are representing? It must have been discussed, and would have been a natural way to ensure some sort of automatic alignment of interests between the representatives and their membership category.
I don't know the precise demographics of different groups. But with Silver and Bronze membership, there is clearly a strong argument that effective advocacy on behalf of those who only want to play club chess or are parents of recently-started juniors requires a representative to be in a similar situation.
Didn't one member one vote lead to 'interesting' results for ECF Player of the Year? It does feel that OMOV could be very easily swayed by relatively small voting blocs with minimal actual involvement in chess.