GL#09 is on CFC website

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: GL#09 is on CFC website

    I think most would agree that the current method is too slow. I wonder how many active governors are happy with it?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: GL#09 is on CFC website

      I spoke with David Lavin last night and sorta pushed the idea that the easiest change for the better he could do to help speed things up would be to reinstate the Governors Forum and enforce that rather than GLs as the primary method of communication and voting.

      He couldn't believe that it had been allowed to lapse just because the CFC didn't want to pay $4 per month to keep it online.
      Christopher Mallon
      FIDE Arbiter

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: GL#09 is on CFC website

        If we reinstate the forum some clear rules of order need to be drawn up. Aside from standard Roberts (modified to reflect an online environment) rules about length of debate, time to vote etc. need to be ironed out.


        I suggest it be "chaired" by a CFC Parliamentarian rather than by the President. Procedural issues have been too politicized over the last few years.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: GL#09 is on CFC website

          Reality check on the governors forum.

          The governors forum on the CFC website was simply seldom used. Also, it was constantly down and unreliable.

          We set up a new governors forum on the website, still it was almost never used.

          Then it was suggested a google group for the governors be setup. I did that, and everyone applauded. All governors were sent invitations, only 21 signed up. But again, also almost no dialogue took place.

          The governors communicate thru emails. Some of you think it is crude, but they have voted with their keyboards to use emails.

          I have left the google group alive for the governors to use, if they choose.

          However, official governor communication will be by email. It works fine.

          For items of urgency, the governor email communication channel is available where the GL process is too slow.

          Okay.?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: GL#09 is on CFC website

            Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
            ...

            However, official governor communication will be by email. It works fine.
            I'm not so sure it can be said "it works fine".

            There simply are too many Governors and not enough actual work being done. IF the number of Governors was reduced to (say) two per provincial affiliate plus the Executive, AND those in the positions were actually committed to dilligently working on the issues, some progress could be made.
            ...Mike Pence: the Lord of the fly.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: GL#09 is on CFC website

              Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
              Reality check on the governors forum.

              The governors forum on the CFC website was simply seldom used. Also, it was constantly down and unreliable.

              We set up a new governors forum on the website, still it was almost never used.

              Then it was suggested a google group for the governors be setup. I did that, and everyone applauded. All governors were sent invitations, only 21 signed up. But again, also almost no dialogue took place.

              The governors communicate thru emails. Some of you think it is crude, but they have voted with their keyboards to use emails.

              I have left the google group alive for the governors to use, if they choose.

              However, official governor communication will be by email. It works fine.

              For items of urgency, the governor email communication channel is available where the GL process is too slow.

              Okay.?
              No offense Bob, but unless and until the GLs are abolished or reduced in importance to mere newsletters (bimonthly executive updates to the Governors, committee reports but no votes/discussions) and official sanction is given to one of these boards as the official method of communication, it won't take off. That's partly why I didn't bother signing up for the Google group - the other being it wasn't even officially sanctioned by the Executive! The old Governors forum at least had executive support and was actually created by a motion by the Governors.

              The reliability issues were not bad until near the very end, and just like the final going down could have been solved with $4 per month. Instead the CFC will merely let its $160 investment in the forum software go to waste... And P.S. I don't particularly like Google Groups either and that's the other reason I haven't signed up yet, although I would do so grudgingly if it was made official and meaningful. It would still be better than email!
              Christopher Mallon
              FIDE Arbiter

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: GL#09 is on CFC website

                Does Motion 2008-10 Bonus Points in the Rating System have a chance to be implemented in a near future? or will it be done with a pen?

                As: H.Bond "no one at the Office could modify the rating program" and
                C.Mallon "software can no longer be modified since we no longer have the source code,".

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: GL#09 is on CFC website

                  I concur with the rationale of Chris reply to Bob. The forum method will work with the abolition of GLs. It will be the method of decision making if the Governors so choose it. Email is still too crude an instrument. Gl's made sense when I first became a Governor in 1981; a few things have changed over the last quarter of a century.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: GL#09 is on CFC website

                    Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
                    Does Motion 2008-10 Bonus Points in the Rating System have a chance to be implemented in a near future? or will it be done with a pen?

                    As: H.Bond "no one at the Office could modify the rating program" and
                    C.Mallon "software can no longer be modified since we no longer have the source code,".
                    Given that the LAST change to the bonus points was never implemented I wouldn't hold my breath on this one. And the CFC has missed its chance to get a whole new website AND ratings software for the insanely low price of $5000... those guys have gone on to better things and wouldn't have time to work for so little anymore.
                    Christopher Mallon
                    FIDE Arbiter

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: GL#09 is on CFC website

                      Originally posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
                      Given that the LAST change to the bonus points was never implemented I wouldn't hold my breath on this one. And the CFC has missed its chance to get a whole new website AND ratings software for the insanely low price of $5000... those guys have gone on to better things and wouldn't have time to work for so little anymore.
                      If you said they had wiped it from their drive and would have to start again, it would be a bit different. This looks like an attempt to negotiate a higher price for a finished product.
                      Gary Ruben
                      CC - IA and SIM

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: GL#09 is on CFC website

                        It never was a finished project, it was finished almost to phase 1 which is about 20% of the work.

                        And of course there's a price that they would work for, everybody has a price. They are really not that interested in it anymore though. You'll notice a couple months ago when I found that out I stopped pushing for it to happen and went to "if only the CFC had done this ..."

                        Of course they should still do it, maybe they can still find someone to work for that cheap.

                        No programmer in their right mind ever deletes ANY code though, so if I said they had I'd just look like a liar. And the CFC certainly can't afford a higher price at the moment, can they.
                        Christopher Mallon
                        FIDE Arbiter

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: GL#09 is on CFC website

                          Originally posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
                          It never was a finished project, it was finished almost to phase 1 which is about 20% of the work.

                          And of course there's a price that they would work for, everybody has a price. They are really not that interested in it anymore though. You'll notice a couple months ago when I found that out I stopped pushing for it to happen and went to "if only the CFC had done this ..."

                          Of course they should still do it, maybe they can still find someone to work for that cheap.

                          No programmer in their right mind ever deletes ANY code though, so if I said they had I'd just look like a liar. And the CFC certainly can't afford a higher price at the moment, can they.
                          In the good old days when there wasn't much money around people weren't looking to get much money from the CFC. Incentive basis wasn't unknown.

                          These days the sky is the limit when it comes to wages and deficits.

                          The kind of person we need running the CFC is one who squeezes a penny so tight the queen squeels. A guy who tosses around dimes like they are manhole covers.

                          How long does it take to make a program like that? Usually a round figure like 5,000. is an estimate and over runs are added on.
                          Gary Ruben
                          CC - IA and SIM

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X