PDA

View Full Version : 10. AGM Modernatization Subcommittee Report



Lyle Craver
01-15-2011, 01:41 AM
please post your report here

Bob Armstrong
01-15-2011, 10:54 AM
Armstrong Report of AGM Modernization Subcommittee - Pt. I

The AGM Modernization Subcommittee is now myself as Chair, Chris Mallon and Michael von Keitz. It is a Subcommittee of the Procedures’ Committee ( myself as Chair and Bob Gillanders ). Originally the Subcommittee developed a CFC AGM Model ( initial rough draft by Chris ). It will see the AGM take place at the Can. Open as usual, but the proceedings there will be broadcast in both audio and video, so it can be received by governors across the country on their computers. The not-on-site governors will be able to type in to the meeting text of their comments/questions/ etc., and they will be read out by the Secretary using the laptop, to those governors on-site.
Here is the Model:

A CFC Model AGM
Revision # 2, August 12, 2010

Purpose of Modernizing the CFC AGM:

There are two main purposes of the modernization of the AGM :

1. to allow governors from across the country, who cannot make the AGM, to participate to a high degree in the AGM on-site proceedings.

2. to try to replace as much as possible, the somewhat anti-democratic " Proxy " system ( whereby an absent governor gives an attending governor his vote, allowing some governors to have 2 or 3 votes themselves ! ). Governors will be able to participate by computer interactivity, and vote from home, and so will not need to consider a proxy.

Components of a Modernized AGM:

1. On-site Component - This will have a face-to-face governor meeting component, as is now done. But it will use technology which will allow governors to participate from their own home computers – video and audio broadcasting; texting, both ways..

2. Website Use - It will employ a broadcasting server. Since it is employing a website, governors not present will not need to download any special program. They can just log in.

3. Webcam Use - It will use visual technology to give non-present governors greater participation. The video will coordinate with audio broadcasting. This way, when someone present at the AGM location is speaking, they will be able to be seen by non-present governors.

4. Audio Broadcast - It will use audio technology to give non-present governors greater participation, although this will be one-way broadcasting from the site, at the same time as the video broadcasting. Non-present governors will only need normal speakers to receive the audio of the meeting.

5. Text Participation - Non-present governors will participate by typing text into the laptop on site. The Secretary will read aloud the texts to the on-site governors.

6. “ Speaking “ Order - Non-present governors will indicate to the secretary on site with the laptop ( could be the CFC Secretary, or the CFC E.D, or someone else who can be on site ), that they wish to speak, and there will be a system for assigning the order of texting in. The secretary will read out the text to the present governors as he recognizes the text writers.

7. Voting – the Chair of the meeting, usually the President, will convey by webcam that he is calling a vote on a motion, after sufficient discussion. Then all non-present governors can type in their vote, which will be recorded by the secretary. This will therefore be a public vote, since everyone will see how governors are voting. This approximates the public voting by show of hands that will be occurring for the present governors. As well, there will a mechanism for private messages that can be used for confidential votes, such as elections which are traditionally by secret ballot.

8. Proxies – Governors will only be allowed their own vote – they will not be able to hold a proxy. But a governor not attending will be able to give his proxy to a substitute, a non-governor. This could either be a full discretionary proxy, or a “ directed “ proxy ( setting out the vote to be cast on the various motions ), or a combination.

9. Vote Registration Form – for those non-attending governors who do not want to get involved in the proxy system, they will be able to send to the secretary a voting certificate, setting out their vote for all motions, and the secretary will cast their votes at the relevant time.

Superiority of the Model Over Current Teleconferencing

The Subcommittee on AGM Modernization has developed a model which tries to make the new AGM as interactive as possible, to encourage governors from across the country to join in by computer and to participate if they cannot themselves physically attend. We did consider teleconferencing. But the feeling was that it was not interactive enough, and that the logistics of dealing over the phone in conference with some 45 governors not on-site were very difficult. There is the problem of speakers interrupting each other trying to be identified to speak next, if not interrupting the speaker directly to speak. It was felt that using other multi-media approaches would eliminate much of this difficulty.

So, we are proposing:

1. Video one-way broadcasting – this will make the AGM much more attractive for non-on-site governors to participate. They can sit at home at their computer and view the meeting in progress. Speakers will go to the video chair, and so all governors will see the speaker across the country. Speakers will line up to speak on-site, just as speakers do at microphones at conferences. It may even be possible that the operator of the camcorder will be able to focus on speakers where they are sitting, to make the process easier. It is important to see a speaker’s body language when there is important debate going on – it helps interpret what the speaker is saying, and their commitment to their position.

2. 1 way audio broadcasting – at the same time as video is being broadcast, the audio of the speaker’s voice will also be being broadcast simultaneously. The non-on-site governors only need speakers to be able to participate in this way, which most computer users have.

3. Computer Texting 1-way ( from non-on-site governors in to the Secretary of the meeting who is using a laptop ) – governors will identify themselves to “ speak “ by texting in their request by computer. This way there is no confusion about who is identifying themselves to speak, and an order of speaking is clear. Also, governors can text in their messages at the same time as others are typing in, rather than having to wait for one speaker to finish. The texting process lets the speaker complete his text, and then the computer enters in sequence the next texters ( just like on a discussion board ). The secretary will then read out the input from the non-on-site governor to the on-site governors. Non-on-site governors will therefore be able to see the input of other non-on-site governors either by reading the text on their own computers, or by hearing and seeing the on-site Secretary reading the input. It is felt this way the Secretary can keep control and order in the “ speaking “ process. This is similar to the discussion board process used at the Trial Governors’ On-line Meeting in April, and it worked quite well. We need an IT person to advise us whether our current Governors’ Discussion Board may in some way be able to be integrated into the texting issue.

4. Computer website – there are various internet computer sites that can handle this audio/video/texting broadcasting, we were told – but the texting aspect is not yet certain. This is one of the reasons we need an IT person to research the market for us, and to develop a plan that incorporates and integrates all three aspects.

5. Voting – it will be possible for the President to call a vote on a motion, and for non-on-site governors to text in their vote. We are also asking in the IT contract for the Technological Implementation Plan to consider if the Governors’ Discussion Board might be useful here, since it has a “ Polling “ feature, that was very successfully used at the Trial Governors’ On-line Meeting in April.

We have been told that we are pretty much leading edge on trying to develop this model of large multi-person, multi-media conferencing, but that the technology to do this is currently out there. It just needs to be coordinated somehow to realize our project, since there is no existent package that does this.

We feel what we are proposing is much superior to current teleconferencing, and will attract more non-on-site governors across the country to participate. It is an advanced technology we are trying to implement, but apparently it is doable, and the expense is relatively low.

Continued in Pt. II below.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
01-15-2011, 10:59 AM
Armstrong Report of AGM Modernization Subcommittee - Pt. II


Further Documentation & Course of Action

We have also developed for the assistance of an IT Contractor, “ Notes on a Technological Implementation Plan “. The revised 2010-11 budget, if passed, allocates to the Subcommittee $ 500 for us to contract to have prepared for us this “ Technological Implementation Plan “. Once we have the plan, then we will be able to go ahead and try to find a volunteer Trial AGM Coordinator to hold a trial AGM on the new model, and using the technology recommended. We are targeting the 2011 July CFC AGM for the modernization.

We have now posted our Request for Proposals for a Technological Implementation Plan on both the Governors' Board and the members' CFC Chess Chat Forum. The latest post has a Jan. 30 deadline for submissions. Unfortunately, we have not yet received any proposals. It has been suggested by one IT specialist who volunteers to advise us from time to time, that what we want may be too advanced as a total package, and people are unwilling to take the task on. We will have to see if this route brings any progress.

The Subcommittee would be pleased to distribute the “ Model “ and “ Notes “ to anyone requesting them ( e-mail me at bobarm@sympatico.ca ).

The Subcommittee is also themselves investigating further options. I’ve spoken to GoToWebinar, a branch of GoToMeeting, recommended by Steve Karpik, one of our IT volunteer advisors, that deals with a larger number of off-site participants, as we will have. So far it is looking like a good first step, though it implements only part of our total model. If we want, we can change the Spring April quarterly on-line meeting into a one-day meeting, that will be a trial of the model proposed for the AGM. We will use GoToWebinar, and it will be free for the trial run. We can then see if people like it and want iit for the AGM. It will be a $99 charge if we use it then for the July AGM.

Michael von Keitz’ is also investigating Skype. He said he’d be able to get to it in a few weeks.

Also I’m looking into Chris’ initial suggestion of Webcast2000.com, but my initial impression ( and it was Steve’s as well when he looked at their website a while back ) is that they do something slightly different, and they haven’t replied to my e-mail yet.

So overall, it’s looking like we may get at least some of our model implemented for the July meeting – cautious optimism at this point - and we still have some options where we're doing ongoing investigation.

Any comments?

Bob, Chair, AGM Modernization Subcommittee

Francisco Cabanas
01-17-2011, 01:11 AM
Will the technology be operating system neutral? In particular will it work with GNU / Linux (Ubuntu, Fedora etc.), Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows (XP or later)?

How do you propose to handle timezones? In particular if the meeting is held in Newfoundland will the Governors in BC and YT be expected to get up in time for a 4:30 am meeting?

Bob Armstrong
01-17-2011, 02:12 AM
Hi Francisco:

At the moment, we're looking like we'll only get a partial modernization for July - will be more emphasis on conference call this first attempt - so I think your questions won't arise. We'll be using a USA based conferencing website likely.

As to timing - Toronto rules in 2011!! - it will be normal EDT hours in Toronto. The meeting lasts for 2 days, so off-site governors will have to determine their attendance times.

Francisco Cabanas
01-18-2011, 02:58 AM
I will start form a quote from the GoToMeeting - support center.
Required: Windows® 7, Vista, XP or 2003 Server (Linux is not supported) since I understand from the report that they are the front runner.

So until the meeting access technology is truly operating system neutral and does not require the governors to license a particular brand or brands of computer operating systems, in order to attend I must strongly urge all governors to vote against this.

It is really no different from saying that in order to attend the AGM governors must stay only at a particular hotel or hotels or travel with a particular airline etc.

As for the time zone issue it is still 6:00 am in the west coast for a 9:00 am meeting in Toronto. So again vote no.

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-18-2011, 09:57 AM
Whatever you choose format for an online broadcasting, please ensure that the meeting is during the weekend.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 10:10 AM
Hi Egis:

Here is the CO schedule on their website:

Saturday, July 9

9:00-19:30 Wellington
Check-in

11:00 Yonge
Canadian Chess Hall of Fame Lecture

13:00 Yonge
Chess 960 Championship Tournament

16:00-18:00 The Mizzen
Opening Reception

18:00 Frontenac
Opening Ceremony and Round 1

18:00 Wellington, Yonge
Analysis rooms

18:00 outside Frontenac
Vendor and sponsor tables

Sunday, July 10

12:00 noon Frontenac
Speed Chess Championship Tournament

18:00 Frontenac
Round 2

18:00 Wellington, Yonge
Analysis rooms

18:00 outside Frontenac
Vendor and sponsor tables

Monday, July 11

9:00-17:00 Frontenac
Children's Day Camp

9:00-17:00 Dockside 7
Chess Federation of Canada Annual Meeting, Day 1

10:30 Frontenac
Children's Day Camp Simultaneous Exhibition with GM Eduardas Rozentalis

12:00 noon Yonge
GM Alexander Shabalov Simultaneous Exhibition

18:00 Frontenac
Round 3

18:00 Wellington, Yonge
Analysis rooms

18:00 outside Frontenac
Vendor and sponsor tables

Tuesday, July 12

9:00-17:00 Frontenac
Children's Day Camp

9:00-17:00 Dockside 7
Chess Federation of Canada Annual Meeting, Day 2

You can see that the AGM is scheduled for the Monday and Tuesday - it has always been then to my knowledge.

It cannot be on the first weekend, since many don't arrive until later on the Saturday ( or at least there would be much objection to starting an AGM at 9:00 AM on the Saturday, I think ).

Bob

Fred McKim
01-18-2011, 10:23 AM
It's my understanding that GoTo Meeting and those sorts of systems require regular phone call charges, so this could get costly for those without unlimited long distance. Still cheaper than attending in person.

As to the time, this is traditional, and anything else would prevent Governors from taking part in some of the rounds of the tournament.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 10:27 AM
Hi Fred:

If we were to use GoToWebinar ( the relevant branch of GoToMeeting for our purposes ), you are right re off-site governors being billed normal long distance. But if governors do audio connection by computer, it is free.

Bob

Fred McKim
01-18-2011, 10:38 AM
Do they provide a means of doing the 'one to many' audio connection via computer ?

This is one of the reasons I recommended Skype, although we might have to limit the number of remote sites.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 10:51 AM
Hi Fred:

As I understand their system, off-site governors will call in to a conference tel. no, either from phone or computer. They will all then be connected with the on-site audio, and each other. When someone wants to speak, they " raise their hand " and a flag appears beside their name on the Chair's laptop list. All off-site governors are muted. When the chair recognizes an off-site speaker, he unmutes them and then they can speak to the on-site governors ( their are speakers on-site ), and all others on the conference call can hear them as well. A snowball microphone can be used on-site so all on-site governors' comments can be heard by off-site governors.

This is my understanding so far.

Bob

Fred McKim
01-18-2011, 10:58 AM
Hi Fred:

As I understand their system, off-site governors will call in to a conference tel. no, either from phone or computer. They will all then be connected with the on-site audio, and each other. When someone wants to speak, they " raise their hand " and a flag appears beside their name on the Chair's laptop list. All off-site governors are muted. When the chair recognizes an off-site speaker, he unmutes them and then they can speak to the on-site governors ( their are speakers on-site ), and all others on the conference call can hear them as well. A snowball microphone can be used on-site so all on-site governors' comments can be heard by off-site governors.

This is my understanding so far.

Bob

Well, if that can be done for a reasonable price it provides us with audioconferencing capabilities, which really is probably sufficient.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 11:08 AM
Hi Fred:

I will be proposing to our Subcommittee shortly, once some other options like Skype, have also been investigated, that we use this system for the 2011 Spring Meeting, as a trial run. We would convert that meeting to a one-day meeting on a weekend. Or at least, we would hold one day of that meeting on a weekend in this fashion.

The web company offers a " free " one-time trial meeting !! We can use that - no cost to CFC.

If we decide to use it for the AGM, it will cost $ 99 for the 2-day meeting in July.

Bob

Francisco Cabanas
01-18-2011, 11:13 AM
It is most certainly not free if the of site have to pay to license a particular operating system in order access the conference. Then pay some one else to install it on their computer.

Christopher Mallon
01-18-2011, 11:26 AM
It is most certainly not free if the of site have to pay to license a particular operating system in order access the conference. Then pay some one else to install it on their computer.

Windows has just over 90% market share. One of the two other primary options also has a method of running Windows programs. It is unrealistic to expect perfection for the price the CFC can afford to pay.

Considering that the CFC AGM currently has the ability to reach 0% of the worldwide computer market share, going to 90% is a serious improvement. It's not exclusionary, it's inclusionary. You might as well argue that doing votes by email is exclusionary because someone might be forced to pay for online access to retrieve their email.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 11:32 AM
Hi Francisco:

As I understand it, and I am not much of a techie, there is some one-way computer interconnectivity. The Chairperson's on-site laptop screen is loaded onto the company's website, and all participants off-site can view it. So there can be handouts posted, power-point presentations made, etc.

As to accessiblitly of the company's system, I note your concerns, and am now investigating what limitations there are in their system, and what additional costs might be associated with using it by various accessers. I'll hope in due course to get back to you on this - before we enter into any agreement. But even if there may be some limitations, it may be to our benefit to still take a " free trial run " with it to see how it works.

Bob

Francisco Cabanas
01-18-2011, 11:55 AM
Windows has just over 90% market share. One of the two other primary options also has a method of running Windows programs. It is unrealistic to expect perfection for the price the CFC can afford to pay.

Considering that the CFC AGM currently has the ability to reach 0% of the worldwide computer market share, going to 90% is a serious improvement. It's not exclusionary, it's inclusionary. You might as well argue that doing votes by email is exclusionary because someone might be forced to pay for online access to retrieve their email.

Windows had over 90% market share in the early 2000's not now. I own a website totally unrelated to IT and in 2003 over 93% of the visitors were using Microsoft Windows. Now 7 years later 77% of the visitors are using Microsoft Windows. A very significant drop in market share, The cost also comes into consideration. Free Libre Open Source Software technologies are far cheaper the propriety technologies based on Microsoft Windows because of the licensing costs involved. So not only will the propriety approach based on Microsoft Windows cost the CFC more it will also be very exclusionary. We a choice here: Stay with exclusive, propriety and expensive 20th century technology or move on to the 21st century.

Christopher Mallon
01-18-2011, 12:05 PM
Windows had over 90% market share in the early 2000's not now. I own a website totally unrelated to IT and in 2003 over 93% of the visitors were using Microsoft Windows. Now 7 years later 77% of the visitors are using Microsoft Windows. A very significant drop in market share, The cost also comes into consideration. Free Libre Open Source Software technologies are far cheaper the propriety technologies based on Microsoft Windows because of the licensing costs involved. So not only will the propriety approach based on Microsoft Windows cost the CFC more it will also be very exclusionary. We a choice here: Stay with exclusive, propriety and expensive 20th century technology or move on to the 21st century.

I also own a website unrelated to IT and I can tell you that 85% of my hits are from Windows - and the remaining 15% includes people on their smartphones!

I also have studies to back me up. http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=120&qpnp=25

Finally... You keep talking about licensing costs. Most people already have computers with Windows on it - no additional cost. So unless you can show an option for the same or less price (one of your "non-exclusive, non-proprietary, and non-expensive 21st century solutions") that does what you ask... then really your point is not contributing anything to the discussion.

Francisco Cabanas
01-18-2011, 12:31 PM
I also own a website unrelated to IT and I can tell you that 85% of my hits are from Windows - and the remaining 15% includes people on their smartphones!

I also have studies to back me up. http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=120&qpnp=25

Finally... You keep talking about licensing costs. Most people already have computers with Windows on it - no additional cost. So unless you can show an option for the same or less price (one of your "non-exclusive, non-proprietary, and non-expensive 21st century solutions") that does what you ask... then really your point is not contributing anything to the discussion.

But does your website require users to use Windows as is being proposed in the CFC meeting case? That is by the way also is the problem with the net applications data.

It is the only way that one can get 100% Windows and no GNU / Linux and Mac Os X users for desktop and laptop users as you claim.

Christopher Mallon
01-18-2011, 12:59 PM
Actually, my website doesn't even (properly) work in Internet Explorer, except for the latest version.

Believe me I'm a pretty big anti-Microsoft person (Back in the day, I argued strongly against the GLs being sent out in Word format) but I use their products when and where it makes sense. Barring an affordable solution that will work cross-platform, this one seems to make sense for the CFC.

Francisco Cabanas
01-19-2011, 02:02 AM
I also own a website unrelated to IT and I can tell you that 85% of my hits are from Windows - and the remaining 15% includes people on their smartphones!

I also have studies to back me up. http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=120&qpnp=25

Finally... You keep talking about licensing costs. Most people already have computers with Windows on it - no additional cost. So unless you can show an option for the same or less price (one of your "non-exclusive, non-proprietary, and non-expensive 21st century solutions") that does what you ask... then really your point is not contributing anything to the discussion.

First I must say I misread this post in my rush to get to work this morning. 15% for GNU / Linux, Mac OS X and smartphones combine is what was posted as opposed to15% for smartphones only. My apologies.

Those numbers are not that different from mine at 23% for for GNU / Linux, Mac OS X and smartphones. There can be many reasons why different websites may see different numbers. What is far more important is the trend away from Microsoft Windows on the same website. Furthermore it makes no difference if someone is using GNU / Linux on a desktop or Android also Linux on a tablet or a smartphone if they cannot participate. The issue remains the same they were excluded. It is also no different from sending the GL in Microsoft Word format at a time when many of the competing products on the market could not read .doc files. By the way my 77% figure for Microsoft Windows includes Microsoft Windows 2000, NT 4 and 3.xx, 95, 98, ME and yes even Microsoft Windows 3.xx non of which work with the proposed software adding to even more exclusions. The thing to keep in mind here is all it takes is to exclude one governor who is legally entitled to vote in a meeting and the results of the meeting can be legally challenged.

On the other hand this online meeting is a model of inclusivity. It works on an Android smartphone, it also works on Windows NT Workstation 4.0 with IE 6. an OS from the mid 1990's. One can throw virtually any OS and browser combination at this online meeting and it will work! The technology is also simple to use. The result is already apparent. A level of participation unheard of in the history of the CFC. This one works. Let us build on it.

The proposed hybrid in person and webinar AGM raises all sorts of other problems starting with the uneven access by different participants in the meeting (big problem) and including time zones, technical support for the users, such as what happens if a client computer BSODs, in the middle of a critical vote, long distance costs if the audio does not work and the list is endless.

My suggestion here is to leave the AGM structure alone for now and instead focus of refining the online meetings as the primary way for the assembly to do business, including shifting business away from the AGM onto the online meetings. I am also strongly opposed to replacing one of the online meetings with a hybrid in person and webinar meeting.