Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
-
Carl Hibbard
- Posts: 6028
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
- Location: Evesham
Post
by Carl Hibbard » Tue May 19, 2015 6:07 pm
The report of ECF board meeting 93 is here and worth a read.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ersion.pdf
Something denied at the forum(s) meeting is sitting there in black and white.
The Board was reminded of the reason for launching the forum: the unofficial forum was toxic and displayed an unprofessional, unregulated image of English chess which would deter potential sponsors; the need to communicate was essentially secondary.
Secondary
File this one under strategy.
Last edited by Carl Hibbard on Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: URL correction to offending document.
Cheers
Carl Hibbard
-
LawrenceCooper
- Posts: 7259
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Post
by LawrenceCooper » Tue May 19, 2015 6:23 pm
"It was agreed that Council need to understand the complex issues of team selection and funding."
If we want to send our best team it costs more seems to be a simple enough appraisal
-
Roger de Coverly
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Post
by Roger de Coverly » Tue May 19, 2015 6:56 pm
More giveaways. The ECF Board have finally admitted to a desire to move to a compulsory membership system. So from whenever, if ever, they can get it through the voting membership, it will cost, whatever the Bronze membership then is, for a player to play a single game included in the grading system. If Board members think that league and junior chess is sustainable and can be grown under such a financial regime, would they like to start making their case now?
-
Mick Norris
- Posts: 10382
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Post
by Mick Norris » Tue May 19, 2015 7:04 pm
Carl Hibbard wrote:The report of ECF board meeting 93 is here and worth a read.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ersion.pdf
Something denied at the forum(s) meeting is sitting there in black and white.
The Board was reminded of the reason for launching the forum: the unofficial forum was toxic and displayed an unprofessional, unregulated image of English chess which would deter potential sponsors; the need to communicate was essentially secondary.
Secondary
File this one under strategy.
By denied, you mean that they were lying to you? It is pretty clear who brings an unprofessional image of English Chess i.e. the ECF
Any postings on here represent my personal views
-
Alan Kennedy
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:33 am
Post
by Alan Kennedy » Tue May 19, 2015 8:26 pm
I have just posted
I have just read the minutes of the latest ECF board meeting with some dismay.
the unofficial forum was toxic and displayed an unprofessional, unregulated image of English chess which would deter potential sponsors; the need to communicate was essentially secondary.
I do question if the Board of the ECF would be well advised to read the book "How to win friends and influence people" as I am not sure such vitriolic criticism does the image of the ECF any favours. Perhaps an apology to Carl is in order?
in the other place. It will be interesting to see if I receive a response. I liked Alex's suggestion of abolishing the other place's forum. He was clearly very brave!
-
Chris Rice
- Posts: 3418
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am
Post
by Chris Rice » Tue May 19, 2015 8:46 pm
[quote]the unofficial forum was toxic and displayed an unprofessional, unregulated image of English chess which would deter potential sponsors;/quote]
Sorry but this is complete rubbish. For example, England would not have had a 50+ European champion in 2014 without forum members contributing to Keith Arkell's expenses, forumites doing our very best to support and cheer him on and Leonard Barden, who is often on the EC forum, publicizing his achievement in a national newspaper as Keith readily acknowledged at the time.
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... &start=225
-
Carl Hibbard
- Posts: 6028
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
- Location: Evesham
Post
by Carl Hibbard » Tue May 19, 2015 8:51 pm
They need a directors blog with fully moderated comments probably using Wordpress with the main site being a more standard html5 perhaps SquareSpace or the like.
Cheers
Carl Hibbard
-
Alan Kennedy
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:33 am
Post
by Alan Kennedy » Tue May 19, 2015 9:53 pm
Mike Truran has posted this in another place
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/po ... f=3&p=1981
Mike Truran wrote:I cannot help but agree with Alan. Even if it was said in the meeting, surely just a few second's thought would have led to the realisation that this is just not the sort of thing you include in a public document. What possible upside did anyone think would result?
-
JustinHorton
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Post
by JustinHorton » Tue May 19, 2015 9:55 pm
"Lack of time did not always make a timely response possible."
Or more honestly put, "choosing not to reply did not always make any kind of response possible".
"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 » Tue May 19, 2015 10:07 pm
JustinHorton wrote:"Lack of time did not always make a timely response possible."
Also from these minutes
The suggestion of a blog was discussed, but it was generally agreed this would be labour intensive to maintain. The question of compunction to use the forum was discussed, with a common view that it should not be mandatory for directors.
It's within the theoretical power of the voting membership, however defined, to insist that directors provide regular reports of whatever format on their activities and initiatives. This can be done by declining to elect or re-elect those directors remaining silent.
Forum postings are not the only method that can be used.
-
Carl Hibbard
- Posts: 6028
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
- Location: Evesham
Post
by Carl Hibbard » Tue May 19, 2015 10:11 pm
A blog would be better although poor old (young) Alex would be the only person posting.
Cheers
Carl Hibbard
-
Roger de Coverly
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Post
by Roger de Coverly » Wed May 20, 2015 12:26 am
Alan Kennedy wrote:Mike Truran has posted this in another place
Difficult to disagree. If the ECF Directors really believe that a forum presenting the views of those compelled by the ECF's own policies to become ECF members is toxic, then expressing this in public is a potential presentational disaster. We wait to see whether non-views expressed by un-persons will be removed.
-
JustinHorton
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Post
by JustinHorton » Wed May 20, 2015 8:16 am
Well I disagree to an extent. It's inept, and particularly inept because Fegan in particular has being saying the opposite, but I'd rather the Board gave its collective reason for saying so than that they pretended that reason didn't exist.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
Mike Gunn
- Posts: 1026
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm
Post
by Mike Gunn » Wed May 20, 2015 11:32 am
If you read the minutes I think you will see a "collective reason" doesn't exist. In practice a Board votes on proposals (to set up a forum, to close down a forum) and directors have different reasons for supporting or opposing the proposals. If you read the minutes you will see that opinions on forums/ blogs are divided. While there are certainly some directors who see this forum as "toxic" (and would like to see it closed down), I remain to be convinced that this is the majority view (or official ECF policy). This is (in fact) an example of poor minute taking: minutes should record decisions made and not all all the discussion that takes place before those decisions are made. But once again, the ECF manages to score an own goal!
-
JustinHorton
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Post
by JustinHorton » Wed May 20, 2015 11:45 am
Mike Gunn wrote:If you read the minutes I think you will see a "collective reason" doesn't exist.
Well maybe Mike, but the term "toxic" is not attributed to any particular individual. It's possible to do this ("MG observed that a collective reason didn't exist") and in this instance it would have been better to do so. As it is we are provided with this reasoning but - if it is not the corporate view - we are left in the dark as to who holds this offensive view and who does not.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com