05-03-2012, 03:57 PM
George, thanks for drawing my attention to the relevant part of the constitution. I was hoping for something a little more detailed but alas no luck. I do realise I am proposing bloc voting but my real fear is that we have 16 members of CS in a room deciding policy for 580+ members. That said, will my 10 proxies make it anymore representative? Probably not.
I personally think AGMs/SGMs should have a quoracy of something in the region of 60 members to make binding decisions. Also, I accept it may be several years since an AGM of CS has been attended by that sort of number. I don’t know if holding the AGM after a one day tournament or the final round of a tournament might enhance participation. Or if it has been tried in the past and failed. At any rate this is a debate for another topic.
Gary, I don’t believe this has anything to do with how savvy people are. I appreciate you are making a slightly satirical point but the second part of your post is a little unfair. Seeing as you asked me own personal view is as follows:
Genealogy should be secondary to residency in the global world we now live in: with more families moving for work commitments and it being relatively easy to move halfway around the world. Things have changed and a system based solely on genealogy could be seen as restrictive and exclusive. I believe residency should be more important than your family history. I am also not opposed to a grandparentage rule if it is tempered by a residency clause. Andy Burnett’s suggestion is along the lines of something I would move to if I felt the rules should be changed but I’m not convinced they need to be.
I think they probably have the right balance as they are with a slight tweak to allow Matthew to use the SCO flag to retain his FIDE rating (ie. Dougie’s suggestion).
I personally think AGMs/SGMs should have a quoracy of something in the region of 60 members to make binding decisions. Also, I accept it may be several years since an AGM of CS has been attended by that sort of number. I don’t know if holding the AGM after a one day tournament or the final round of a tournament might enhance participation. Or if it has been tried in the past and failed. At any rate this is a debate for another topic.
Gary, I don’t believe this has anything to do with how savvy people are. I appreciate you are making a slightly satirical point but the second part of your post is a little unfair. Seeing as you asked me own personal view is as follows:
Genealogy should be secondary to residency in the global world we now live in: with more families moving for work commitments and it being relatively easy to move halfway around the world. Things have changed and a system based solely on genealogy could be seen as restrictive and exclusive. I believe residency should be more important than your family history. I am also not opposed to a grandparentage rule if it is tempered by a residency clause. Andy Burnett’s suggestion is along the lines of something I would move to if I felt the rules should be changed but I’m not convinced they need to be.
andyburnett Wrote:Personally speaking, the following requirements would be necessary to satisfy me for someone to attain full Scottish international status at adult level.
-born in Scotland (regardless of residency) or,
-parents born in Scotland plus 1 year residency or,
-grandparents born in Scotland plus 3 year residency or,
-citizenship of UK plus 3 years Scottish residency or,
-residency of 5 years.
I think they probably have the right balance as they are with a slight tweak to allow Matthew to use the SCO flag to retain his FIDE rating (ie. Dougie’s suggestion).
Douglas Bryson Wrote:Perhaps the halfway house of grandparent gets you on the FIDE list as SCO but you must choose to reside here before you can play is the way to go.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!