Bob Armstrong's CCC

[Zeljko Kitich]

I'm curios to know is there anyone active in the CCC besides Bob Armstrong? Is he correct in claiming that this is a group effort or are these proposals being put forth his and his alone, with no input from anyone else. In other words, is he putting his proposals forth by claiming they are the proposals of group brainstorming with the force of a group and not an individual. So I've designed this poll to find out. It's fine if they are all Bob's proposals, kudos to him because they obviously take a lot of work. However, I think if they are the ideas of one person he should just say so.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Bob Armstrong's CCC

Too bad that apparently there's no way for a poster to delete or close his own thread, e.g. when he forgets to activate the 'poll' option.

[edit: oops, I see somehow there was a big delay in showing the poll]

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Bob Armstrong's CCC

Too bad that apparently there's no way for a poster to delete or close his own thread, e.g. when he forgets to activate the 'poll' option.

Really? And what makes you think that happened?

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Bob Armstrong's CCC

I edited my above post to explain.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Bob Armstrong's CCC

I edited my above post to explain.

You consider less than 5 minutes a big delay? Are you sure you are a chess player? :D:D

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Bob Armstrong's CCC

You consider less than 5 minutes a big delay? Are you sure you are a chess player? :D:D

Sometimes [edit: less than] 5 minutes is huge, even for a chessplayer. :D

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Bob Armstrong's CCC

I'm curios to know is there anyone active in the CCC besides Bob Armstrong? Is he correct in claiming that this is a group effort or are these proposals being put forth his and his alone, with no input from anyone else. In other words, is he putting his proposals forth by claiming they are the proposals of group brainstorming with the force of a group and not an individual. So I've designed this poll to find out.

The membership of the CCC is public and often posted.

Members of the Cooperative Chess Coalition are:

Ken Kurkowski - Canada
Abbey Alo - Ghana
Joe Fatula - USA
Bob Armstrong - Canada

I am the CCC Coordinator, and thus am to a high degree the public face of CCC. But if you go to our Facebook chess discussion page, you will see that the others take an active role there.

Each member has an equal vote. I, as coordinator, have no tie-breaking vote. Motions with tie-vote fail.

Some ideas put forward by the CCC are members own views for discussion. Some posts are formally by the CCC and have been unanimously endorsed. We try to be clear which it is. For example, the recent 7th day post is my contribution towards all of us members putting forward possible chess reform topics. The CCC hosts the series of "7th day" posts, but the posts are those of the members writing the posts, not of the CCC itself. Should a members' issue gain traction, then the CCC goes into a huddle as to whether to adopt and promote the position.

As well, the CCC has 15 "supporters" - not formal "members". but willing publicly to put their names forward as supporting the CCC general goals.

Both members and supporters get the CCC Newsletter, that comes out roughly monthly.

When it comes to CCC policy, often the "Likes" on the CCC FB discussion board are asked for input. Also, "CCC Supporters" are usually canvassed for input. But CCC policy decisions are finally made by the members (currently 4), and almost always unanimously.

Bob A, CCC Coordinator

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Bob Armstrong's CCC

Bob, I recall occasional questions/stances posted by you under CCC postings from people as far away as Africa. I would assume that one was just a 'follower'?!

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Bob Armstrong's CCC

The membership of the CCC is public and often posted.

Members of the Cooperative Chess Coalition are:

Ken Kurkowski - Canada
Abbey Alo - Ghana
Joe Fatula - USA
Bob Armstrong - Canada

I am the CCC Coordinator, and thus am to a high degree the public face of CCC. But if you go to our Facebook chess discussion page, you will see that the others take an active role there.

Each member has an equal vote. I, as coordinator, have no tie-breaking vote. Motions with tie-vote fail.

Some ideas put forward by the CCC are members own views for discussion. Some posts are formally by the CCC and have been unanimously endorsed. We try to be clear which it is. For example, the recent 7th day post is my contribution towards all of us members putting forward possible chess reform topics. The CCC hosts the series of "7th day" posts, but the posts are those of the members writing the posts, not of the CCC itself. Should a members' issue gain traction, then the CCC goes into a huddle as to whether to adopt and promote the position.

As well, the CCC has 15 "supporters" - not formal "members". but willing publicly to put their names forward as supporting the CCC general goals.

Both members and supporters get the CCC Newsletter, that comes out roughly monthly.

Bob A, CCC Coordinator

Okay so I'll assume supporters in general support you but to be pragmatic do not specifically endorse or even get to see or request to see any proposal before it hits the street so to speak. Of those that are your current members, again to be pragmatic, there are two, not being based in Canada, who may not be familiar, through no fault of their own, with the Canadian chess scene. I'm not sure they have any input into your proposals and I'm not sure on a pragmatic level (that word again) how much I would rely on their input, if there is any.

What is the recourse for a supporter that disagrees with one of the proposals. Should they say so publicly here on Chesstalk? Contact you to ask that you make it clear that they don't agree with a specific proposal? Remove their name as a supporter? What is your organizations procedure in such a case?

It seems to me that you have published in the past a longer list and have not previously published this shorter list in the past. It seems there are a number of former members who by definition left.

I'm willing to guess that the lion's share of input is still your own. It seems Spragget was right but we'll see what the poll says.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Bob Armstrong's CCC

Bob, I recall occasional questions/stances posted by you under CCC postings from people as far away as Africa. I would assume that one was just a 'follower'?!

Hi Kevin:

CCC is very pleased to count as a "member", Mr. Abbey Alo of Ghana. He is the Ghanaian National Chess Coach, and a member of the Ghanaian Sports Council.

Bob A

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Bob Armstrong's CCC

Hi Kevin:

CCC is very pleased to count as a "member", Mr. Abbey Alo of Ghana. He is the Ghanaian National Chess Coach, and a member of the Ghanaian Sports Council.

Bob A

Which of course makes him very familiar with the Canadian chess scene and an active participant in shaping CCC proposals.

Perhaps you are conflating the differences between someone being an active member and being a supporter? Perhaps you should develop a category of honourary member. He seems very well qualified for such an honourary role.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Bob Armstrong's CCC

Okay so I'll assume supporters in general support you but to be pragmatic do not specifically endorse or even get to see or request to see any proposal before it hits the street so to speak. Of those that are your current members, again to be pragmatic, there are two, not being based in Canada, who may not be familiar, through no fault of their own, with the Canadian chess scene. I'm not sure they have any input into your proposals and I'm not sure on a pragmatic level (that word again) how much I would rely on their input, if there is any.

See my post under Armstrong's CCC for our consultation protocol, and member voting.

What is the recourse for a supporter that disagrees with one of the proposals. Should they say so publicly here on Chesstalk? Contact you to ask that you make it clear that they don't agree with a specific proposal? Remove their name as a supporter? What is your organizations procedure in such a case?

All of the above. Of course, we hope that they will provide their input and argument for the 4 members to consider, so we can amend our position if the input is persuasive.

In the past, "supporters" have posted on the CCC FB page against positions of one of the members, and even against CCC policy. That is fine and healthy. We have no problem with such objection being made on any discussion board anywhere in the world. We have had "supporters" quit because they could not accept some CCC policy or other. Again, this is their choice, and understandable if they cannot compromise.

Bob A

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Bob Armstrong's CCC

See my post under Armstrong's CCC for our consultation protocol, and member voting.



All of the above. Of course, we hope that they will provide their input and argument for the 4 members to consider, so we can amend our position if the input is persuasive.

In the past, "supporters" have posted on the CCC FB page against positions of one of the members, and even against CCC policy. That is fine and healthy. We have no problem with such objection being made on any discussion board anywhere in the world. We have had "supporters" quit because they could not accept some CCC policy or other. Again, this is their choice, and understandable if they cannot compromise.

Bob A

All of the above because your organization considered this possibility and drafted a policy which does include all of the above? Or all of the above because that is your answer now that I've asked the question? And if it's the latter shouldn't you consult your members and supporters before giving an answer on policy like that? And who would they have to persuade? The 4 members only (what would you do in the case of a tie vote?) or the 4 members and other 14 supporters? How would that vote or decision take place? When's the last time the membership voted on anything?

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Bob Armstrong's CCC

Which of course makes him very familiar with the Canadian chess scene and an active participant in shaping CCC proposals.

Perhaps you are conflating the differences between someone being an active member and being a supporter? Perhaps you should develop a category of honourary member. He seems very well qualified for such an honourary role.

Hi Kevin:

Though CCC began as a Canadian moderate chess reform organization, in April 2012 it transformed itself into an international organization, and sought and obtained representation in membership of 2 other countries.

Mr Alo is eminently qualified to speak to world chess issues. He is appointed by the Ghanaian government as National Chess Coach, and appointed to the National Sports Council to represent the interests of chess there. Canada should be so lucky.

I do informally discuss with him the chess scene in Canada, and we discuss country differences. So he is somewhat aware of the Canadian chess scene.

CCC has a constitution - it clearly defines "member" and "supporter" and refers to the "Likes" on its Facebook chess discussion page. We do not have "honourary members". "Supporters" are hoped for input contributors; "Members" are CCC "deciders".

Bob A

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Bob Armstrong's CCC

Sorry I can't find the post you referenced, I tried under Armstrong CCC etc but to no avail. Oh and I've looked at the facebook group. 650 members and most posts are general chess discussion, not to do with CCC specifics.