The ICCF Rules Commission

[Per Söderberg]

Dear friends of ICCF,
As I don't know how many frequently reads postings on TCCMB I must share with you a posting made by the Candidate for General Secretary Pedro Hegoburu there:

http://ancients.correspondencechess....hp?topic=144.0

First Pedro seems to have a problem with the work of the Rules Commission.

"It cannot be solved overnight, but a good group of people with an open mind can certainly improve the current "patched-up" system we will have after Congress."

Look at this. I as Deputy Rules Commissioner reads that a good group of people with open minds can certainly improve the "patched-up" system we will have after the Congress. Does Pedro have a Crystal Ball? First of all we have a good group of people called the Rules Commission with open minds. It looks clear from the posting that is not the view of Pedro. And as the Congress has not yet voted on any issue, not even the Rules Commission has yet decided, how do Pedro know how the patche-up system will look like.

However the most interesting posting which should be known by each and every Delegate who is thinking about supporting Pedro is:

"Fourth: you seem to take for granted that you are the Rules Commissioner, and that you will continue to be Rules Commissioner after the Congress in Spain.
Let me remind you that you are DEPUTY Rules Commissioner, and that the Rules Commissioner is subordinated to the General Secretary. Let's see who wins the GS election and then you can ask Josef or me if you can continue to be Rules Commissioner.
However, since we've had so many differences in the past, I guess you will understand if I choose to work with another individual in that important position -someone who can be worthy of my friendship and trust- in the event I am elected for the General Secretary position."

Well, I have replied on TCCMB. Is this a statement from someone we wish to run ICCF?

Amici Sumus and Kind Regards,
Per Söderberg,
Deputy Rules Commissioner

[Pedro Hegoburu]

Since I've been held accountable in the past for work not done by a Commissioner under my responsibility (Webmaster), I believe I must be able to call any person I consider able to do the work and will not make me accountable for his omissions.

You are already the Chairman of a Committee, you already have your high responsibility position with ICCF. Other valuable people are also needed and welcome to integrate, you can't have all the hats and put them on.
At least that was some of the criticism made on my person during the 2005 period, it should be valid now too, don't you think? Otherwise the "criticism" would have been personal and not objective and impartial.

[Per Söderberg]

Originally Posted by Pedro Hegoburu

Since I've been held accountable in the past for work not done by a Commissioner under my responsibility (Webmaster), I believe I must be able to call any person I consider able to do the work and will not make me accountable for his omissions.

You are already the Chairman of a Committee, you already have your high responsibility position with ICCF. Other valuable people are also needed and welcome to integrate, you can't have all the hats and put them on.
At least that was some of the criticism made on my person during the 2005 period, it should be valid now too, don't you think? Otherwise the "criticism" would have been personal and not objective and impartial.

Thanks for more revealing facts on how you regard the work of ICCF Commissioners.
As far as my work as Rules Commissioner, could you please point at where I haven't fulfilled my duties! Or are you using a Crystal Ball again that tells you that I will not fullfill my work just to get even with you.
What a joke!

And I can assure you that what is important is that ICCF gets reasonable and easy rules for the players! Not who is Rules Commissioner! Unfortunately the appointed Rules Commissioner had to step down. He had expressed that I would deputise for him in case this would happen. And then I volunteered to do the work. I feel that I can do the job but it's not necessary that I'm the Rules Commissioner. It's all about peforming a task and not having an important position in ICCF. But I guess that is all you are looking for!

I really got a good laugh about wearing all the hats at once, once you had 3 positions in the Executive Board...

Have a nice day!
Per

[Valer Eugen Demian]

"I have a dream" that one day this feud will end!

Could you please do that Mr Soderberg?

[Per Söderberg]

Originally Posted by Valer Eugen Demian

"I have a dream" that one day this feud will end!

Could you please do that Mr Soderberg?

Mr Demian,
So what do you propose? I have always put ICCF first, I have listened to your complaints about the CL cycle - even though you have written the most horrendous things about my person - and made proposals from your suggestions.
Look at your comment here, you ask me to quit the feud. You don't ask Pedro?
I suppose you don't find anything wrong with that Pedro misuses his office to remove people who delivers their job, because they are not his "friends"!
Telling everybody that a few good people with open minds will make a better job than the commission ICCF has for doing exactly this job, a commission with many people from many nations and experience. Please note, I was asked to take over when the appointed had to withdraw. What do you suggest, that I wouldn't accept the appointment, as not being "friend" of Pedro?
Sometimes, if not more often than that, in an organisation you have to accept that you must cooperate also with people that you don't regard as your "friends". Even USA and Sovietunion cooperated during WWII.
Pedro announces that if he is elected he will fire me as Rules Commissioner and replace me with one of his "friends". Now - do you find that is a way to end a feud or put more fire to it? Is that a way for a person, wishing for a place in EB, to behave? Sandbox-behaviour if you ask me!
Perhaps he will appoint Mr Demian as Rules Commissioner? I suppose you will do well, saying "Yes and thank you, oh great Pedro" to any suggestion he might have.
One thing is for sure Mr Demian, you are not my friend. But I'm always prepared to listen to your ideas and expertise in ICCF-matters, as I put the well-being of ICCF first and my personal feelings at bay. In Pedro's case, he wish to use his power in ICCF to get rid of people who delivers their tasks because they are not his "friends". And I must find it remarkable that nobody reacts on his bullying methods to achieve that...
Best, Mr Söderberg

[Per Söderberg]

An other implication that this brings, is the question if the Statutes really shall be interpreted to that it is the General Secretary who selects the Rules Commission and its Commissioner!?
I feel that this is fundamentally wrong as it means that the GS will also be able to handle the Commission. In fact, the GS will in practise be the Rules Commissioner.
Am I the only one who considers this incorrect?
Best, Per

[Pedro Hegoburu]

Dear Per,

Please explain because I don't understand:

* When I wore "too many hats", people criticized it, and it was OK to criticize it.

But when you wear many hats (Deputy Rules Commissioner and Chairman of an Appeals Committee) no-one can criticize it.


* People can vote against me in an election (either because they dislike me or because they don't like the way I work) and it is OK.

But when it comes to you, people cannot vote against you, either if they dislike you or if they think your work is not OK.


* If I speak well about what I've done for ICCF, it's "someone blowing his own trumpet", and people must criticize that.

But when you say "I work OK and deliver my job", it's not "someone blowing his own trumpet" and needless to say, it is not criticized.


You want the best of both worlds. You want me to lose the election, you have voted against me in 2003 and will do so in 2007, you support Josef in the election, BUT if Pedro happens to win, you want to keep your "jobs" in ICCF.

Mind you, I perfectly understand what you're doing, and it's the logical thing to do. You don't like me or you think I've done a poorer job than Josef has done, and I think you're entitled to any opinion and to vote accordingly. I am not complaining about what you do.

But you must understand that I am not forced to live with it. If the Rules Commissioner is subordinated to the General Secretary (something I did not write or decide) then it is logical that the person responsible for his subordinate's job be able to elect him, or at least, make such a proposal for the Executive Board to support.

There are many capable people within ICCF, and in my opinion, they also deserve an opportunity. If I may add, I personally think you're not the best choice for Rules Commissioner: you are biased toward postal play and you have almost no experience in webserver play (7 games in just 2 webserver events, one of which was an introductory webserver event!) and Rules changes in 2008 will mainly revolve around webserver issues.
It scares me to death to think we might get an "8 PM" rule in webserver play or a similar weirdness.
Is that clear enough?

Still this is highly "theoretical" because the election is nowhere closed. Your favorite candidate can win and you will then get to keep your dearly beloved Preciousssss (read aloud with Gollum voice-over).

[Alan Borwell]

Originally Posted by Per Söderberg

An other implication that this brings, is the question if the Statutes really shall be interpreted to that it is the General Secretary who selects the Rules Commission and its Commissioner!?
I feel that this is fundamentally wrong as it means that the GS will also be able to handle the Commission. In fact, the GS will in practise be the Rules Commissioner.
Am I the only one who considers this incorrect?
Best, Per

Dear Per,

ICCF Statute 3.7 states the position very clearly about the appointment of Commissioners and each of them has his/her own functional responsibilities. They are integral members of the ICCF Management Committee in their own right.

No individual EB member has the right to choose his Commissioners, nor are those functional positions "subordinated" to any EB Director. Could you imagine the Qualifications or Rules Commissioners being willing to work in such a manner? Direction of any functions in ICCF or business, does not mean "domination" Of course, the provisions of Statute 3.9 are also important.

The Outlines of Duties are NOT part of the Statutes (para 3.2 last sentence) and could be varied by the Executive Board or Congress, which could even decide to place Rules under another EB member, so nothing should be assumed. They are only in draft form at present.

What matters most of all is that ICCF selects the best possible officials for all EB and Management Committee positions and that they can all work together in a harmonious way, in the very best interests of ICCF and all CC players

Of course, in some organisations (eg in FIDE) there is a "presidential ticket" system which helps to achieve compatibility, as the President knows he has a team of people who will work together, rather than being faced with the appointment of any "errant" individualists

Best wishes,

Alan P. Borwell,
ICCF Honorary President

[Peter Coleman]

A system of checks and balances is better. However it does necessarily assume that people will still make the effort to work with one another.

Can one make this assumption at the present time with ICCF?

[Per Söderberg]

Originally Posted by Pedro Hegoburu

Dear Per,

Please explain because I don't understand:

* When I wore "too many hats", people criticized it, and it was OK to criticize it.

But when you wear many hats (Deputy Rules Commissioner and Chairman of an Appeals Committee) no-one can criticize it.


* People can vote against me in an election (either because they dislike me or because they don't like the way I work) and it is OK.

But when it comes to you, people cannot vote against you, either if they dislike you or if they think your work is not OK.


* If I speak well about what I've done for ICCF, it's "someone blowing his own trumpet", and people must criticize that.

But when you say "I work OK and deliver my job", it's not "someone blowing his own trumpet" and needless to say, it is not criticized.


You want the best of both worlds. You want me to lose the election, you have voted against me in 2003 and will do so in 2007, you support Josef in the election, BUT if Pedro happens to win, you want to keep your "jobs" in ICCF.

Mind you, I perfectly understand what you're doing, and it's the logical thing to do. You don't like me or you think I've done a poorer job than Josef has done, and I think you're entitled to any opinion and to vote accordingly. I am not complaining about what you do.

But you must understand that I am not forced to live with it. If the Rules Commissioner is subordinated to the General Secretary (something I did not write or decide) then it is logical that the person responsible for his subordinate's job be able to elect him, or at least, make such a proposal for the Executive Board to support.

There are many capable people within ICCF, and in my opinion, they also deserve an opportunity. If I may add, I personally think you're not the best choice for Rules Commissioner: you are biased toward postal play and you have almost no experience in webserver play (7 games in just 2 webserver events, one of which was an introductory webserver event!) and Rules changes in 2008 will mainly revolve around webserver issues.
It scares me to death to think we might get an "8 PM" rule in webserver play or a similar weirdness.
Is that clear enough?

Still this is highly "theoretical" because the election is nowhere closed. Your favorite candidate can win and you will then get to keep your dearly beloved Preciousssss (read aloud with Gollum voice-over).

Well, I can reply to the questions you don't understand. The first thing I asked Med was if I was appointed Rules Commissioner, then it would be necessary to find a new Appeals Commissioner for other Rules. I expect to only have one of the tasks when the Congress is over.

As you talk about firing me then I would accept the reason that I have done many mistakes or ignored to deliver. But to my knowledge I have delivered. I apolodgise for pointing that out. I have no desire for any fame.

Well, for the 8 PM I can only say that it's a success, it did remove many complaints and problems. It is easy to understand and is independent of time zone. then there are many others who shared the view like the Rules Commission as well as a substantial majority of the Congress, about 7 to one of the delegates. But if you still don't wish to respect a democratic and successfull decision, then YOU are entitled to your view.

Its true that I enjoy postal CC. But I'm not biased. I support all the transmission ways of the ICCF. From your postings it's easy to see that you seems to not enjoy neither email or postal play. I enjoy all three transmissions.
Even if I haven't been playing that many games on the server, I have acted as TD and Team Captain in many events on the webserver and gathered a lot of experience.

And finally, it seems that you think that the Rules Commissioner is the one who decides. It's not so, it's a team. The Commissioner is only the one who gathers information but if he has an idea and the Commission don't have a majority in favour - it would be a "misdoing" to put such an idea as a proposal.

And then the Congress can vote down any Rules proposal. Which happens rather frequently.

Kind Regards, Per