PDA

View Full Version : (read) Access to Governor's forum



Kerry Liles
08-19-2008, 09:17 AM
Although the Governor's forum has been established as a place for Governors to post and debate issues among themselves, it has been suggested that read access to that forum be granted to non-Governors. That might have been a good idea if it had been implemented early; perhaps it is not too late to do so, but it needs to be made extremely clear that Governors would have to be careful not to debate or mention issues that are currently confidential.

I am in favour of full transparency, but I also recognize that rumours fly fast and some issues should be debated among the Governors (not many issues, but I can understand some being classified that way).

Having the additional burden of having to be careful about the confidentiality of the issues on the private forum would hinder discussion among Governors (and we don't need more hindrance to that).

Rather than allowing anyone (well, anyone registered on this board) to read the Private forum, perhaps it is sufficient to suggest that anything of any value that comes out of private discussions will end up in the GL anyway? Is that reasonable?

Ken Craft
08-19-2008, 10:19 AM
There could be two Governors' forums. The busier one would be the area where we discuss normal everyday issues. The other should be for the rare times that Governors need to debate something which is confidential.

Under your suggestion Kerry, who would determine what is important to put in a GL?

In my ideal system, the discussion forum model would replace the antiquated GLs.

Christopher Mallon
08-19-2008, 10:34 AM
I'm pushing strongly for the discussion board to virtually replace GLs. I just have to figure out a way to make the votes not show current results until the vote is over.

As for what goes in a GL.. it could be as simple as a governor saying "Include in GL"

Bob Armstrong
08-20-2008, 12:46 PM
Hi Ken:

I like your idea of 2 governors' forums ( fori? ).

One would have CFC members/public having " read only " status. It would be for most non-confidential debates by Governors. It would generate more interest in the CFC if members knew what the Governors thought on current issues. Then the members/public could come back the the public chess forum and post on issues of interest, so that they ( and Governors/Executive? ) could debate them there in the open, with all involved.

The other could be the Governors' " Confidential Forum ", for the rare times the Governors do not yet want to go public on an issue.

It is not a big deal to set up such 2 forums as I understand it and it would greatly foster an understanding in the membership of what it takes to run the CFC. It would, I believe, end up building greater support for the CFC among the membership.

Bob

Kerry Liles
08-20-2008, 01:41 PM
One might argue that there are already too many forums... having two forums for the Governors presumes a level of interest that hasn't been shown yet. I think the additional hassle of keeping confidential discussions separate from casual discussions is too great a risk...

Bob Armstrong
08-20-2008, 02:22 PM
Hi Kerry:

There is a problem I think, with the introduction of the Private Governors' Forum as part of the GL process. In the GL's, the Governors' comments can be viewed by ordinary CFC members. And if they want to debate the views of the Governors, they can come here on the public forum, and debate what the Governors have said.

But as I understand it, on motions, the Governors will now make their comments in their private forum. And as far as I know, these comments will not be reproduced in the GL under the relevant motion. The GL will now just give the results of the voting. This is a serious diminishment of communication between the governors and the membership. We will never know what the governors are thinking !

If this is to be, then the onus falls directly on the governors to communicate with the membership. They must come here to the public forum, and advise of their positions on the non-confidential issues being debated. This is the only way we will know the thinking behind motions.

My concern is that the governors have not been educated to communicate with the membership. And that they will fail to come here and post.

Is my concern legitimate??

Bob

Ken Craft
08-20-2008, 02:39 PM
I think your concern is legitimate, Bob.

Kerry Liles
08-20-2008, 03:54 PM
My concern is that the governors have not been educated to communicate with the membership. And that they will fail to come here and post.

Is my concern legitimate??

Bob

I think that is a legitimate concern... I have no idea how much of the inter-governor dialogue might be reproduced in the GL, but your fear that it might be zero could be close to reality. I should point out that the GL model only allows for public reading and debate *after* the fact, so it is not so useful in practice, but you are correct that there is a history of the Governor's submissions. Of course, Governors can still cc the Secretary of the CFC and ask him/her to include their comments in the relevant GL (but I have yet to do that myself or see anyone else do it).

The way I see it, the discussion forum is a handy way (better than mass email threads) to have a governor discussion about topics. Real voting results and associated rationale for the votes should still be sent to the CFC secretary for inclusion in the GL as always...

Bob Armstrong
08-20-2008, 04:39 PM
Hi Kerry:

You are a governor now.

Do you have any ideas on how your fellow governors can be encouraged/convinced to come here and dialogue with ordinary members/the chess public? How can they be made to see that this is important for the functioning of the CFC - to get member input into CFC debates??

Bob

Christopher Mallon
08-20-2008, 10:37 PM
I was thinking perhaps either as soon as a vote is complete (for non-confidential matters) or as soon as the need for confidentiality is over, the discussion thread from the Governors could be moved to a public archive. This will be simpler than having two forums, less confusing and serves the same purpose.

What do you think of that idea?

Bob Armstrong
08-21-2008, 12:19 AM
Hi Chris:

The idea of a public archive for governors' discussion threads goes part of the way. It at least allows members AFTER THE FACT, to find out why the governors voted as they did.

But the idea of a " view only " governors' forum is that members could see the governors' discussion taking place at the time, BEFORE A VOTE. They could then post on the issues here in the public forum, debate them among themselves ( and maybe with the participation of the governors themselves, here on this board ), and maybe develop further input, which members could then pass on to their governors, before the vote. It would allow ordinary members to try to influence the positions of their governors BEFORE A VOTE. This would give the ordinary members more sense of ownership of the organization, and would build a stronger allegiance to the CFC.

I agree there would have to be a second " confidential " governors' forum for the rare confidential debates.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
08-21-2008, 11:57 AM
Posted on ChessTalk 08/08/21:

" Hi Ken:

According to the by-laws of the CFC, the Governors run the CFC, not the Executive ( you have read my article previously in SCTCN&V setting this out ).

So all that is needed for a " view only " governors' board is a MOTION.:)

You have tried to talk the Executive into this option and have failed. So no one can blame you for now confronting the Executive with a motion to get what the governors want.

Bob "

I agree that in this case, the motion should also set up a second " confidential " governors' forum, for those rare occasions where they need privacy before going public.

Bob