English Chess Forum

So who has obtained the rights to run the 2021 EPSCA events? Forgive me if this is obvious and I have missed it.

Andrew Martin wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:22 pm

So who has obtained the rights to run the 2021 EPSCA events? Forgive me if this is obvious and I have missed it.

Here are the 2020 AGM Minutes which arrived shortly after my forum post predicting we would not see them for months.

Having read the minutes it does seem like this is a contrived scandal driven by people who weren't at the meeting. It does seem that the meeting could have been better organised BUT these are difficult times and we are all adapting to new technology and ways of working. I personally doubt I could have done any better.

When the pandemic first hit in March we hoped (and were perhaps led to believe) that there would be relatively normality after a few months. It now looks like things will drag on until next Autumn and possibly indefinitely; hence the need to put stopgaps in place at short notice.

As someone spending a large amount of time putting stop gaps in place, at times in the face of severe criticism, I wholly concur.

[At times, but, in fairness, more often with support. The criticism always feels worse for some reason].

"Having read the minutes it does seem like this is a contrived scandal driven by people who weren't at the meeting."

John U was "at" the meeting - does he think they minutes are reasonably accurate?

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:33 pm

"Having read the minutes it does seem like this is a contrived scandal driven by people who weren't at the meeting."

John U was "at" the meeting - does he think they minutes are reasonably accurate?

For the avoidance of confusion I was not referring to John Upham.

"For the avoidance of confusion I was not referring to John Upham."

For more avoidance of confusion, I wasn't suggesting that. I have been to (too) many meetings in my life, both chess and non-chess related and have frequently read minutes and wondered if I actually attended the meeting in question... I don't expect 100 % accuracy, (unless you're drafting rules etc.) but you hope they're broadly right.

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:16 pm

"For the avoidance of confusion I was not referring to John Upham."

For more avoidance of confusion, I wasn't suggesting that. I have been to (too) many meetings in my life, both chess and non-chess related and have frequently read minutes and wondered if I actually attended the meeting in question... I don't expect 100 % accuracy, (unless you're drafting rules etc.) but you hope they're broadly right.

This was the case for the Surrey Border League prior to the current Secretary (HT Jones)

The minutes would be sent out many months after the meeting and would record the wishes of the Secretary rather than what transpired.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 8:07 pm

I personally doubt I could have done any better.

Nope, too easy...

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:04 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 8:07 pm

I personally doubt I could have done any better.

Nope, too easy...

Flagged to the moderators. Happy to take most things on the chin but not this irrelevant swipe.

I'll be happy to explain the relevance to the moderators. I didn't think I was being especially cryptic.

My original point was that it does seem the EPSCA Zoom meeting could have been managed better. However as I've never chaired a Zoom meeting myself I didn't want to imply that I could have done a better job - unlike some contributors to this forum occasionally do.

So, to summarise, we have established that Andrew wants to be clear he lacks the relevant competence to comment, but objects strongly to me implying he lacks the competence to comment.

I'm conscious that while I might find this amusing, other than an evening writing Appendix B, I don't have any involvement in EPSCA and I am taking this thread off topic.

So just to note, I don't think the main complaint above is the competence of the handling of the zoom meeting. It is that major, controversial proposals were made without consultation with the members. The technical difficulties exacerbated that issue, which was especially unfortunate given some people with relevant competence would have been willing to help.

I try to be as charitable as possible in my attribution of motives, and conflicts of interest are unavoidable between the various chess organisations that share members. I though Simon Brown's comment that conflicts were to be managed not avoided was sensible. But I think how people with influential positions use their influence is an important matter. So perhaps something the governance committee could advise ECF Board members on.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:59 pm

So, to summarise, we have established that Andrew wants to be clear he lacks the relevant competence to comment, but objects strongly to me implying he lacks the competence to comment.

Before this escalates further, I made a throwaway comment about Zoom meetings as - having never needed to use Zoom so far - I didn't wish to imply I could do a better job. I suppose, in Paul's words, I don't have the competence to comment.

I more than claim the competence to comment on the wider issue of ECF matters and junior chess as a club and county official, a former ECF officer and the founder of a junior chess club in my local area.

Paul and myself have clashed on this forum many times and perhaps have no reason to like each other. I do wish that was otherwise. However in these exchanges I try to remember that, outside of the forum, I don't know Paul personally, and nor does he know me. I have criticised his viewpoint but have never made petty swipes at his intelligence. I merely ask that he extends me the same privilege. The offer of a pint of beer should we ever find ourselves at the same event does stand.

I shall leave this matter with Carl and Jack.

I stand by my position that Andrew's posts in this thread are without any merit.

I regret that he thinks this is because of personal animosity.