08-04-2022, 12:43 PM
I've been following this with interest but without chipping in, because I think all the questions I broadly have are coming up through other people's posts. A few of my own thoughts on this though:
1. It concerns me that the eligibility rules contained in motion 1 are being implemented regardless. There have been so many changes by members through the years that I think the members should be allowed the final yes/no on them. The lifelong eligibility for people passing through SCO is not something I agree with, but I can understand if this is what people want. Personally, I don't care if they are in the constitution or not, I'm much more interested in what the criteria are.
2. I'm in a strange position of both wanting Matt to represent Scotland, but also not being keen on creating exceptions. For me the criteria, regardless of what they are, should be implemented very rigidly as that is the only fair and consistent thing to do. Eligibility for individuals should be defined by the criteria, not put to a vote. This is where going back to point 1, I would actually be supportive of criteria that made Matt eligible, but that is not on the table. Matt's clarifications on what he understood the 2009 vote to be on is also very helpful.
3. The way the AGM is held going forwards needs to be rethought. Back in 2019, the night before r9 of the Scottish, I sifted through the AGM minutes and documents available and was totally confused, which is why I reached out for clarification. It seems now that I was not alone in being totally lost, and the general agreement is that something went very wrong between a motion being raised, being passed, being recorded and being implemented. I found the quote by Jim very interesting:
"The forum has an available readership of 203 recorded members, 20 of whom took part on the Eligibility thread. Of these 20 posters, 92 posts out of 169 were by 4 members. This does not actually reflect the real view of the membership mass, rather a highly vocal few. Incidentally CS has a membership of 527, which also means the 324 members do not even wish to participate in the Forum. Hardly a truly representation of CS membership and participation on the Forum."
Ironically, those same thoughts about not really reflecting the real view of the membership mass is something I think of the AGM in its old state. It is not right that to "care" about Scottish Chess you need to be able to find your way to a hotel in Glasgow on one lunchtime of the year. There are lots of logistical reasons why people can't go (think 6hr round trips, travel costs, childcare, etc), and OK, historically there was no way round this, but one thing to come out of the pandemic has been the realisation that hybrid in person/zoom/teams meetings do work and I think would get much better engagement and discussion. The point around some people not being computer literate is fair, but hybrid seems almost a no brainer to give people both options. One of the key votes around eligibility was passed 16 to 14 at an AGM. Isn't that also a highly vocal minority? And that is not to criticise best efforts of the past, but I think does show the dangers of adopting significant motions that have limited scrutiny.
The good thing about this thread is it is getting a recorded discussion going on the issues. I applaud a lot of the people who have looked to scrutinise this in detail. It might not make an easy discussion, but going through the details (while keeping things away from personal attacks) can only be a good thing. It would be good if we got the same level of engagement on other (arguably more important) issues too.
1. It concerns me that the eligibility rules contained in motion 1 are being implemented regardless. There have been so many changes by members through the years that I think the members should be allowed the final yes/no on them. The lifelong eligibility for people passing through SCO is not something I agree with, but I can understand if this is what people want. Personally, I don't care if they are in the constitution or not, I'm much more interested in what the criteria are.
2. I'm in a strange position of both wanting Matt to represent Scotland, but also not being keen on creating exceptions. For me the criteria, regardless of what they are, should be implemented very rigidly as that is the only fair and consistent thing to do. Eligibility for individuals should be defined by the criteria, not put to a vote. This is where going back to point 1, I would actually be supportive of criteria that made Matt eligible, but that is not on the table. Matt's clarifications on what he understood the 2009 vote to be on is also very helpful.
3. The way the AGM is held going forwards needs to be rethought. Back in 2019, the night before r9 of the Scottish, I sifted through the AGM minutes and documents available and was totally confused, which is why I reached out for clarification. It seems now that I was not alone in being totally lost, and the general agreement is that something went very wrong between a motion being raised, being passed, being recorded and being implemented. I found the quote by Jim very interesting:
"The forum has an available readership of 203 recorded members, 20 of whom took part on the Eligibility thread. Of these 20 posters, 92 posts out of 169 were by 4 members. This does not actually reflect the real view of the membership mass, rather a highly vocal few. Incidentally CS has a membership of 527, which also means the 324 members do not even wish to participate in the Forum. Hardly a truly representation of CS membership and participation on the Forum."
Ironically, those same thoughts about not really reflecting the real view of the membership mass is something I think of the AGM in its old state. It is not right that to "care" about Scottish Chess you need to be able to find your way to a hotel in Glasgow on one lunchtime of the year. There are lots of logistical reasons why people can't go (think 6hr round trips, travel costs, childcare, etc), and OK, historically there was no way round this, but one thing to come out of the pandemic has been the realisation that hybrid in person/zoom/teams meetings do work and I think would get much better engagement and discussion. The point around some people not being computer literate is fair, but hybrid seems almost a no brainer to give people both options. One of the key votes around eligibility was passed 16 to 14 at an AGM. Isn't that also a highly vocal minority? And that is not to criticise best efforts of the past, but I think does show the dangers of adopting significant motions that have limited scrutiny.
The good thing about this thread is it is getting a recorded discussion going on the issues. I applaud a lot of the people who have looked to scrutinise this in detail. It might not make an easy discussion, but going through the details (while keeping things away from personal attacks) can only be a good thing. It would be good if we got the same level of engagement on other (arguably more important) issues too.