PDA

View Full Version : 04. Instructions/Questions/Comments on the On-line Meeting Procedures



Lyle Craver
01-15-2011, 01:34 AM
Questions from Governors about the rules of this meeting are welcome here

Bob Armstrong
01-15-2011, 11:31 AM
I have noticed that on making a post, there is then no usual " Edit " button. So if a poster wants to go back and edit out an error in a post, he cannot do so. He must make a new post on the correction. Is this deliberate? If so, what is the rationale for this?

I fear this will be confusing, where errors in original posts are left in for all new viewers to see, and get the wrong information. Only when they go on to subsequent posts will they realize that there has been a change.

Can Chris reintroduce the " Edit " button?

Bob

Bob Armstrong
01-15-2011, 10:18 PM
Just bumping this thread back up to the top to catch Chris' attention - he has made a couple of posts since my post on this thread, yet has not reponded to my question yet.

Bob

Lyle Craver
01-19-2011, 02:10 AM
I note "en passant" that vBulletin continues to mark threads as containing unread messages where I have in fact read all the messages. I have noticed this on several occasions.

This is very strange.

Christopher Mallon
01-19-2011, 06:45 AM
In protest over the voting taking place in a method contrary to the handbook, I will not be casting any votes at this meeting.

Bob Armstrong
01-19-2011, 07:23 AM
I have to say that I agree with Chris.

I have argued vociferously before the meeting on the Governors' Discussion Board ever since Lyle raised his concerns about confidentiality in CFC voting at on-line meetings, that we could tweak the system, and that it was overall quite acceptable as slightly modified.

Initially I proposed a " Voting Pledge " to be confirmed by all governors in attendance by post, that they would not view the vote totals, nor the casters, BEFORE they voted. It was my intention to also impose the penalty that anyone not agreeing would have any vote of theirs nullified.

Then Chris advised he could disable the Prior View Option. No one on the executive responded to this positively - in fact I'm not sure if anyone even commented. So as far as I know, Chris did not pursue an improvement that went some ways to further ensuring confidentiality.

I also did a poll on the Governors' Discussion Board, and though voting was light, the majority of governors voting voted that the Board format voting with a voting pledge was quite satisfactory to them. Bob G and Lyle were the 2 who loudly argued against this. Also Bob G stated, and I challenged him on this, that there was insufficient acceptance by the Governors of Board voting. He presented no evidence in support of this.

Lastly, Chris correctly notes that the Handbook specifically states re on-line meeting voting, that it shall take place on the Board:

CFC Handbook SECTION 2 –Rules and Regulations, Article One, section 22A – Procedures for Governors’ On-Line Meetings:

1. The Meeting

( i ) Meetings shall be held on the CFC Governors’ Discussion Board.
( ii ) .....
( iii ) .........
( iv ) Motions will be passed during meetings, and such meeting extensions as may be required due to amending motions.

3. Role of the Posting Secretary

The Secretary, or his/her designated alternate, shall be made a Governors’ Discussion Board Administrator. S/he shall post the meeting agenda, discussion threads and motion voting threads on the Governors’ Discussion Board as follows:

( i ) ....
( ii ) .........
( iii ) .........
( iv ) Motions – motions will be “ stickies “ at the top of the page, and will only be used for recording governor votes. No voting on motions can occur until after 9:00 PM on the 4th, to allow for initial discussion, and the filing of amending motions. After voting on motions has commenced, there can be no amending of the motion. Motions voting closes at 6:00 PM on the 7th. Discussion of motions will be under normal agenda item headings.
( v ) Amending Motions – motions to amend a tabled motion may be introduced up to 6:00 PM on the 3rd. A discussion thread for them shall be started. They shall be voted on by the normal motion vote closing time – 6:00 PM on the 7th. Once an amending motion is filed, the main notion sought to be amended shall be temporarily closed, pending the outcome of the amending motion.
( vi ) Motion Meeting-Extension – where a motion has been “ closed “ due to an amending motion, as soon after 6:00 PM on the 7th as possible, the Posting Secretary will reopen the motion, or if amended, start a new thread on voting on the amended motion. There will be no longer be a discussion thread for the unamended motion nor a new one started for the amended motion. The meeting will then be extended to 6:00 PM on the 10th to vote on this motion(s) ( and for no other business ). Voting on this motion(s) shall be closed at 6:00 PM on the 10th.

CONCLUSION

I also, reluctantly, in protest, and an attempt to get voting this meeting back by Board Format, will refrain from voting.

Bob A

Ken Craft
01-19-2011, 08:25 AM
I'm torn between not voting at all in support of the protest or voting on this page.

Bob Gillanders
01-19-2011, 08:47 AM
For those Governors who are wondering what all the fuss is over, I would refer you back to 2 threads on the regular Governors Board entitled:
1. Voting - on line meetings - Easy remedy
2. Winter meeting - voting

To summarize, after the rules were written and approved, we discovered that the board did not allow us to both keep the voting confidential and get the vote results by name. Unfortunate indeed. Bob A. proposed that everyone promise not to look at the names until after they voted. A few governors said okay, a few said not okay.

Until we get the voting system working correctly (or get the proper approval from the governors), the Chair has ruled voting will be by email.

To Bob A. and Chris - your protest "I'm not going to vote then" seems kinda childish to me. Do you remember playing road hockey as a kid. The kid with the net and goalie equipment always threatening to quit and take his net with him when he didn't like the referees call. :( Would it not be more productive and adult like to propose a motion to confirm your claim that the governors are okay with it.

It is too late now to introduce new motions at this meeting. But we could hold an email vote before the April meeting to settle the issue.

I see my edit button is now working. Thanks Chris.

I would then add, It was not just Lyle and myself finding your solution unsatisfactory, but also governors Best and Craft.
Clinging religiously to precise meeting rules and procedures seems inappropriate to me. We have discovered several problems to date and are working our way thru the "bugs".

A vote boycott to pressure the Chair is not taking the high road. :(

Ken Craft
01-19-2011, 08:51 AM
You fourth paragraph is unbecoming of a Chair of a meeting. If you want to go with your analogy, the system is more akin to the referee re-writing the rule book and the players refusing to play in protest.

Bob Armstrong
01-19-2011, 09:01 AM
Hi Bob G:

I can only repeat - the evidence available is that the governors are satisfied by majority with the voting procedures in the Meeting Procedures, and the Board voting format, with a " Voting Pledge ".

No evidence has been presented to the contrary.

If you want to change the status quo, you should bring a motion to do so, and show the governors do want a change.

Bob A

Bob Gillanders
01-19-2011, 09:16 AM
Bob A.

I disagree with the validity of your last statements. But we are not going to settle anything here.

I propose a truce. We should spend the last two days discussing issues of an urgent issue. The CYCC qualification system is far more urgent than this discussion. And other stuff like Stuart's proposal is far more interesting.

Can we focus on those for now. We can get back to this stuff next week.

Bob Armstrong
01-19-2011, 09:17 AM
The Oct. 21, 2010 Poll on the Governors' Discussion Board setting out that the majority voting were satisfied with the Board voting format, with a " voting pledge ":

View Poll Results: If a voting pledge is instituted, Board voting as exists now is fine.
This poll will close on 10-28-2010 at 01:05 PM

Yes - Bob Armstrong, Daxin Jin, Fred McKim, Ken Einarsson, Michael Barron, Michael von Keitz, Nikolay Noritsyn, Rob Clark - 8 - 72.73%

No - Bob Gillanders, Garland Best, Ken Craft - 3 - 27.27%

Need more be said?

Bob

Bob Armstrong
01-19-2011, 09:20 AM
Hi Bob G:

I fully intended to keep being active in discussion, as I have tried to be to date, on the important issues, including this procedural one that deals with Presidential/Chair powers.

Bob

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-19-2011, 09:28 AM
You fourth paragraph is unbecoming of a Chair of a meeting. If you want to go with your analogy, the system is more akin to the referee re-writing the rule book and the players refusing to play in protest.

I think the President took a liberty of a clause with "etc" :)

"(i) The Chair will decide on procedural matters such as motions of order, when to close agenda items, whether to add items to the agenda after the deadline, adjournment, etc."

Ken Craft
01-19-2011, 09:34 AM
That clause does not grant "liberty".

Christopher Mallon
01-19-2011, 09:54 AM
First of all, nowhere does it state that votes have to be confidential. However, I offered a simple and workable solution to get around this - which as BobA said, was never even responded to.

Second of all, it IS possible for Lyle to see who voted what, as I've stated several times, even if the poll was set to not show this in the results.

Therefore, the rules are being bypassed for no good reason. This is why I will not be participating in the votes.

Bob Gillanders
01-19-2011, 10:21 AM
First of all, nowhere does it state that votes have to be confidential. However, I offered a simple and workable solution to get around this - which as BobA said, was never even responded to.

Second of all, it IS possible for Lyle to see who voted what, as I've stated several times, even if the poll was set to not show this in the results.

Therefore, the rules are being bypassed for no good reason. This is why I will not be participating in the votes.

Chris - if you have solved the problem, the votes are confidential and we can get the vote results by governor, then that is good news. I must have missed your post or email where you advised me of this. Please repost or email me again. If I am satisfied that the problems are solved, I would be absolutely delighted to us the online voting system. :)

Sometimes the good news goes unnoticed amongst all the noise!

Christopher Mallon
01-19-2011, 10:33 AM
Bob,

It's not that I've solved, it's that I know how. Since you didn't seem to be interested in using it, I didn't put in the 1-2 hours to modify the forum code - between a baby and 50 essays to mark, plenty else to use my time on.

If you would like me to go ahead and do it in time for voting to start, I'd be willing to do that.

Basically what I am hoping to accomplish is, if the poll has a certain flag (perhaps the word MOTION as the first word of the title), it will not display results to anyone until the vote closes (done automatically by the forum, or manually by Lyle or myself).

There are easier ways to handle it of course but this way produces the best long-term result. If I can't get it to work I can always just disable the results page link.

Bob Gillanders
01-19-2011, 11:08 AM
Thanks Chris.

I appreciate the offer to get it working in time for this meeting. It sounds like the outcome is not guaranteed, but likely to be successful. I would prefer that you be ready to fix any other problems that might occur. I note, in the last 24 hours, the board seems to be finicky. Double posts, slow loading, etc. Perhaps it is better to leave this fix until next week. Sometimes when you fix one thing, something else gets broke. We are in the critical last 2 days of discussion on some important issues, and I would like to hear your comments.

To keep everyone focused on other important issues (IMHO, more urgent) can be agree to fix the voting problem next week. :)
Besides, I am sure you are also keeping very busy changing diapers. :)

Lyle Craver
01-19-2011, 01:05 PM
Bob A offers a straw vote he took on abandoning the secret ballot in favor of voting "on the board", the president and I have done the opposite - and said why.

The whole point is to make use of whatever software tools that stay within our regulations and practices that go back more than a decade.

The software has to work for us, not we for it - how can this be a hard concept?

Bob Armstrong
01-19-2011, 01:17 PM
Hi Lyle:

I didn't think by using the Board voting format, with a " vote pledge ", I was " abandoning the secret ballot ". My purpose was to make the Board voting " secret " like always - I am willing to trust the governors' promise on this, whereas you seem unwilling to do that.

Bob

Michael Barron
01-19-2011, 09:53 PM
Bob,

I would think, the creation of the Youth Olympiad Coordinator position is one more urgent issue.

Could you please second my motion to create such position and call it to vote?

Unless, of course, you think the Executive could make it after the Meeting... ;)

Bob Gillanders
01-19-2011, 10:24 PM
Unless, of course, you think the Executive could make it after the Meeting... ;)

I like that idea. Let's focus on the CYCC qualification rules today and tomorrow. We can decide on this later. :)

Christopher Mallon
01-19-2011, 11:18 PM
I know the CYCC is important but I personally have grown just a little tired of dealing with CYCC motions at least twice each year since I became a Governor in 2004. And this despite it being by far the most successful official CFC event of them all, year after year.

If they were incremental improvements each time, fine, but it seems every year or two we get a completely new vision for how it should run.

For the record, when I voted for the current rules a couple of years ago, I was under the impression that the individual YCCs qualified to the Provincial YCC, NOT to the CYCC. The way it is apparently actually worded is just a joke and someone sooner or later will make a total mockery of it just to qualify a bunch of 400-rated 12 year olds to the CYCC just to make a point.

Francisco Cabanas
01-20-2011, 02:20 AM
I recognize that this section of the handbook was likely drafted in the days of punch cards and tabulating machines, but it does give the President discretion on whether the votes are to be conducted on this board or by email. From Bylaw 3


PRESIDENT

4. The President shall be the chief executive Officer of the Federation. He shall preside at all meetings of the Assembly of Governors, or of the Board of Directors, when he is personally present. He shall exercise constant active and general supervision of the Officers of the Federation, and the conduct of its affairs, with the exception of:

(a) Those matters which are reserved to the Assembly of Governors or the Board of Directors.

(b) Those matters which have already been delegated to Committees appointed by the Assembly of Governors.

The President shall have full power to take such action in the name of the Federation, as he may in his sole discretion decide.

In matters where an immediate decision is not necessary, the president shall confer with the other Officers of the Federation, but as a matter of general policy only, and not so as to limit in any way his authority. In any matter covered by his general authority and not coming within the duties specifically allotted to any other Officer or Officers, the decision of the President shall override that of any other Officer.

The President shall exercise constant and active supervision over the chief employee of the Chess Federation of Canada (commonly known as the Executive Director).

Bob Armstrong
01-20-2011, 02:27 AM
Hi Francisco:

Does he have discretion where another part of the Handbook specifically states the vote is to be on the Board ( Rules and Regulations, s. 22 A )? It's not like there's an ambiguity somewhere to be interpreted.

Just curious.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
01-20-2011, 02:42 AM
Since Bob G has indicated that failure to take Chris up on improving the Board voting format was inadvertant, and has asked Chris to do what he can and he'll consider it when he sees the final product, I will vote now ( though I still maintain the Board voting format as is, with a " vote pledge ", was quite an acceptable stop-gap measure ).

Bob

Lyle Craver
01-20-2011, 01:36 PM
Chris has said that an admin can see who voted which way in a secret vote.

Accordingly as a test of that I have set up a secret straw vote asking your favorite ice cream flavor that I hope to see who voted which way.

I've left it open for only 24 hrs (which is the minimum one can make a vBulletin poll) but will be closing it once I'm satisfied that an admin (i.e. me) can see the votes.

The bottom line is telling you all "the vote was 19-11 but I can't tell you who voted which way" won't cut it with the Governors nor with me.

Thanks for your help in this experiment - LC

Lyle Craver
01-21-2011, 05:36 PM
I did not spot Bob's instructions to close discussion on threads covering motions for vote until just now, but as per his instructions have now closed these threads (and deleted one of my own comments made after his request but before I saw it).

Voting continues until Sunday. Thanks to you all!

Michael Barron
01-23-2011, 10:22 PM
Chris,

Could you please enable the " Edit " button on the CFC Youth Committee Forum as well?