English Chess Forum

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.

"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

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?

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

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!

[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

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.

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?

"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".

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.

A blog would be better although poor old (young) Alex would be the only person posting.

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.

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.

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!

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.