English Chess Forum

The latest by Tim Wall
https://www.chess.com/blog/timpeterwall ... lish-chess

But picking upon one of the comments by "playe4"

One small example of the pickle, is that, to play in my local chess tournament I have to join & be a member of ECF?! Marvelous, that will encourage more people to want to play chess-not! (Also, does play in a competitive chess club league, as a chess club member again require ECF membership?.

As far as I am aware both the prospective candidates for the now cancelled CEO election favour rules whereby to participate in organised chess it is necessary to either become a non-voting ECF member by annual payment or at the very least make an annual payment as a "supporter". Payment was required to participate in the ECF's online events as an example.

Question is whether prospective development officers favour such rules as well and why they don't view them as getting in the way of their growth targets

To the extent that Tim is heaping more coals on the fire of the Truran/Pein debate, I really don't feel that he does English chess any favours. I can see there's an argument, in chess as in life, for the command-and-control model but my own preference for the 'enabling' model is reinforced by the knowledge that the alternative would result in one person, assisted by his disciples, having near-total control of English chess. I acknowledge that it's perfectly possible that this would be beneficial but it might equally well be detrimental. Continuing this argument seems to me counter-productive when there are other matters, and the much-debated issue of development officers is one example, where constructive discussion might actually be useful.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 15, 2021 2:01 pm

The latest by Tim Wall
https://www.chess.com/blog/timpeterwall ... lish-chess

It will be interesting to see how he casts his vote in the Chairman of the Governance Committee election, assuming it does get as far as a vote, when he says:

"for the Chair of the Governance Committee, the consultation ‘votes’ of Silver Members were 17 to the incumbent, Robert Stern, and 5 for Chris Fegan, the challenger"

and follows it up with:

"It should be stressed that these ‘votes’ are just consultative, and Direct Member Reps are not bound to vote this way – particularly given the extremely low numbers of people expressing a preference."

... or maybe it won't be interesting and 100% of forum members could correctly predict how he'll cast his votes on behalf of Silver members now.

I suppose in the absence of OMOV Tim feels free to treat Silver Members in a way which is similar to how he perceives representatives of other constituent units to behave. Do we seriously expect him to set a better example?

Yes, but it is a dilemma for John Reyes, who takes his responsibilities very seriously (contrary to Malcolm's view); does John split his votes as per the replies he has had, or does he assume Tim will vote for his mate, and balance this by casting his votes accordingly?

Mick Norris wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 15, 2021 6:00 pm

does John split his votes as per the replies he has had

I have always believed that the principle of splitting votes pro rata is wrong. Council has given John six votes because they want him to use six votes, not because they want him to use two, or possibly even none.

This is entirely separate from the practice of giving all votes to a candidate who you know is not preferred by most of those you represent.

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 15, 2021 4:28 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 15, 2021 2:01 pm

The latest by Tim Wall
https://www.chess.com/blog/timpeterwall ... lish-chess

It will be interesting to see how he casts his vote in the Chairman of the Governance Committee election, assuming it does get as far as a vote, when he says:

"for the Chair of the Governance Committee, the consultation ‘votes’ of Silver Members were 17 to the incumbent, Robert Stern, and 5 for Chris Fegan, the challenger"

and follows it up with:

"It should be stressed that these ‘votes’ are just consultative, and Direct Member Reps are not bound to vote this way – particularly given the extremely low numbers of people expressing a preference."

... or maybe it won't be interesting and 100% of forum members could correctly predict how he'll cast his votes on behalf of Silver members now.

I have spoken to tim and i feel that myself i will vote the way the members tell me and i always have said that

For Mike Vs Malcolm i have it 17-15 (one member email who is not a silver member and was 16)
For robert vs Chris it 18-4 for me on the email

at the end of the day that what i been told and i never go against the members.

John,
Had Malcolm stayed in the election for CEO and you had received no further feedback, would you have voted

6-0 for Mike

4-2 for Mike

or 3-3

All of those seem perfectly defendable on the feedback you've got, so I am not sure that saying that you will vote the way members have said really tells the whole story.

There is quite a bit I could take issue with on Tim's latest blog although I resisted the temptation to do so on the BCN facebook page. One starting point is the contention that the Council system makes it hard to eject incumbents; Malcolm Pein became international director by defeating his predecessor and Mike Truran was appointed as CEO after his predecessor was ousted.

What has got my goat several times in this year's election saga (and still does) is the portrayal of Mike Truran as a regressive defender of the status quo when he was one of the directors who walked out in the infamous 2008 mass resignations - the catalyst for change, although it involved a few false starts.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 15, 2021 6:52 pm

I have always believed that the principle of splitting votes pro rata is wrong. Council has given John six votes because they want him to use six votes, not because they want him to use two, or possibly even none.

That, I disagree with. "Individual Rep" is an arbitrary level at which to aggregate votes. Why not aggregate them at a higher level (one Silver rep nominated as the "senior" rep, with all 12 votes) or at a lower level - John divides the country into six regions and polls each region separately?

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:39 pm

That, I disagree with. "Individual Rep" is an arbitrary level at which to aggregate votes. Why not aggregate them at a higher level (one Silver rep nominated as the "senior" rep, with all 12 votes) or at a lower level - John divides the country into six regions and polls each region separately?

Yes, it is an arbitrary level, but the one which Council decided was appropriate. It is not necessary for the individual rep to dilute it.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:47 pm

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:39 pm

That, I disagree with. "Individual Rep" is an arbitrary level at which to aggregate votes. Why not aggregate them at a higher level (one Silver rep nominated as the "senior" rep, with all 12 votes) or at a lower level - John divides the country into six regions and polls each region separately?

Yes, it is an arbitrary level, but the one which Council decided was appropriate. It is not necessary for the individual rep to dilute it.

I just don't think a Council that cared about the theoretical "voting power" of the Silver reps would have deliberately engineered a situation where there are two reps, but the soundings of the second rep are either redundant (they came to the same conclusion as the first rep) or completely cancel out the first rep leaving the Silver members with no net voting power. I think it more likely that Council made something up that seemed okay.

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:14 pm

I think it more likely that Council made something up that seemed okay.

That is exactly what they did. Are you suggesting something that you think is better?

Mick Norris wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 15, 2021 6:00 pm

does John split his votes as per the replies he has had, or does he assume Tim will vote for his mate, and balance this by casting his votes accordingly?

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:14 pm

I think it more likely that Council made something up that seemed okay.

They might have assumed that the two reps would work together and have failed to anticipate a situation where the two reps can't even agree on what their members told them.

I think both reps should cast all their votes in accordance with the majority view of their members. Suppose 75% of members prefer A and 25% prefer B. If all 12 votes go to A you maximise the chance of the majority of the members getting what they want. Do anything else and you don't.

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:39 pm

Mick Norris wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 15, 2021 6:00 pm

does John split his votes as per the replies he has had, or does he assume Tim will vote for his mate, and balance this by casting his votes accordingly?

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:14 pm

I think it more likely that Council made something up that seemed okay.

They might have assumed that the two reps would work together and have failed to anticipate a situation where the two reps can't even agree on what their members told them.

So why give 6 votes to each rep, rather than 12 to one and 0 to the other?