ICCF 2015-028: Increasing the Timeliness of Manual Updates
Dennis Doren, Arbiter Committee Chair
Increasing the Timeliness of Manual Updates
Proposal
Current rules preclude changes to ICCF documents without specific votes by the Congress even when those rules, procedures, and lists of duties are found to be in error. This proposal is to allow a specific two people, the Chair of the Arbiter Committee (ACO) and the Rules Commissioner (RC), to make certain types of changes to existing ICCF documents without specific prior Congress approval. The only types of changes either of these people would be allowed to make would be the following:
(a) when automation (through the server) has changed the procedure for accomplishing something as compared to how a (now outdated) segment of a document states the procedure should be accomplished;
(b) when any error is found in any ICCF document, as compared to what was intended at the time the entry was made;
(c) when the purpose is solely to clarify a portion of a document if a portion has been found to be insufficiently clear (that is, either being open to two different interpretations or lacking in detail in describing what is required); and
(d) when the purpose is to remedy a conflict between two documents, or segments of the same document (such conflicts most typically occurring when one document is updated and not all other documents were updated in concordance). When addressing such a conflict, the determination of which entry (between conflicting ones) to favor will be either (i) the newer entry (if it can be determined which entry is newer than the other(s)) or, if relative newness cannot be determined, then (ii) from a poll by the ACO Chair or RC of the Executive Board members that results in uniform agreement of everyone who responds to the poll within 2 weeks of its circulation. Without the fulfillment of either one of these options, any conflict of rules will still need to be resolved by the Congress and cannot be changed by the ACO Chair or RC.
Under no circumstance should this proposal be read to allow either the ACO Chair or the RC to make any change on his/her own to any existing document where that change would constitute a new rule or procedure beyond the types listed above.
If and when the ACO Chair or the RC makes any change to any document, that official will use the server mailing system to inform everyone of relevance of the change. After that notification, the change will be considered in effect, without any Congress vote. Subsequent to that notification, anyone affected by the change who believes the change constitutes something beyond the above, such as being a new rule instead of simply a clarification, that person can file an appeal to the Appeals Committee (Other ICCF Rules) which will address the appeal in its usual manner.
Rationale
As the ACO Chair with the task of updating the Arbiter Manual this year, I have experienced all of the above four types of issues in the ICCF documents. Immediately after the ACO (initially) completed its task, there were new updates to be made related to improvements in the server's ability to automate tasks. These improvements are already scheduled to continue to occur, but as things stand none of these improvements will be reflected in ICCF documents except as updated once a year (at best). It makes a lot more sense to allow an ongoing updating process.
Likewise, updates in the different ICCF documents have occurred at different times, such that conflicts between documents can occur (and have occurred on multiple occasions). Having to wait many months to correct an obvious conflict serves no purpose, especially if there is a better way. The ACO Chair and the RC each has the responsibility for maintaining certain ICCF documents. We should let them do their job on an ongoing basis, rather than ask them simply to bring the issue to Congress once a year.
Similarly, no written document is perfect in its clarity. If ambiguity is discovered, it makes the most sense to allow the responsible people simply to fix the problem immediately rather than address the problem only once a year, and then only doing so by involving a lot more people (the Congress) for no added benefit.
To reiterate, however, this proposal is not meant to allow, and it should not be read to allow either the ACO Chair and/or the RC to construct new rules, procedures, duties, or the like on their own. True changes in ICCF rules, procedures, and duties are still the responsibility of the Congress; a responsibility not affected by this proposal.
Other Comments/Considerations
This proposal is simply meant to improve ICCF documents by allowing them to be updated (that is, brought in sync with existing procedures and/or newly automated procedures) and corrected as needed; no more, no less.
Relevent Documentation
This proposal has the potential of being applied to all ICCF documents.
Voting Summary
- A vote of Yes will mean you vote to allow the ACO Chair and RC to make updates, clarifications, and corrections to existing ICCF documents without the involvement of the Congress.
- A vote of No will mean you vote against allowing the ACO Chair and RC to make any changes to ICCF documents without specific approval through Congressional vote.
- A vote of ABSTAIN is not a vote but means the vote holder has no opinion and does not wish to represent the correspondence chess players of his or her federation in this matter.
Comments by Relevant Committees, Commissions, or ICCF Officers
Eric Ruch (EB)
No comments yet
Eric Ruch (Rules)
No comments yet
Michael Millstone
No comments yet
Frank Geider
No comments yet
Austin Lockwood
No comments yet