The Aontas Report

Ficheall · 05-10-2015 10:49am #1

Finally available on the ICU website. Or at least, a summary. Some interesting lunchtime reading, perhaps.

L1m1tless · 05-10-2015 1:08pm

mod note: do not post the aointis report in part or in full. It may leave you open for defamation . Ignoring this note will result in infractions or bans. Thanks everyone

cdeb · 05-10-2015 1:58pm

Just to add to that - as the Aontas Report is password-protected and for members only on the ICU site, it's unfortunately not a public document, hence the comment above.

By all means have a read of course!

pawntof4 · 05-10-2015 3:04pm

What bugs me about this is that the author of the report is unknown along with the author of the summary and the email correspondence hasn't been published in full, we're left with just snippets and have to trust that everything that was left out is irrelevant.

rob51 · 05-10-2015 3:58pm

pawntof4 wrote: »

What bugs me about this is that the author of the report is unknown along with the author of the summary and the email correspondence hasn't been published in full, we're left with just snippets and have to trust that everything that was left out is irrelevant.

Fair comment. To get an idea of how balanced this is likely to be have a look at the Munster Chess Union analysis of Pat Fitzsimons allegations against Gerry Graham. Interesting insight.

Sparks · 05-10-2015 4:20pm

To be honest, from what I've read so far, I think it's hugely defamatory and completely wrong. Some of the allegations in it don't have any evidence backing them up, there's no timeline or original documentation listed anywhere, and some of the allegations appear to be based wholly on not knowing anything about the technical side of websites (the github allegation in particular is worthy of a facepalm). And I'm saying that as a chartered engineer who has earned his living doing this kind of thing for the last twenty years, not as a boards moderator.

sinbad68 · 05-10-2015 4:45pm

Sparks wrote: »

To be honest, from what I've read so far, I think it's hugely defamatory and completely wrong. Some of the allegations in it don't have any evidence backing them up, there's no timeline or original documentation listed anywhere, and some of the allegations appear to be based wholly on not knowing anything about the technical side of websites (the github allegation in particular is worthy of a facepalm). And I'm saying that as a chartered engineer who has earned his living doing this kind of thing for the last twenty years, not as a boards moderator.

How does a chartered Engineer make a living for 20 years which involves ( defamation !,allegations !, wrong timelines!, documentation!, etc ), Engineer in what field ? are you in court all the time as an expert or what ?

Sparks · 05-10-2015 5:51pm

sinbad68 wrote: »

How does a chartered Engineer make a living for 20 years which involves ( defamation !,allegations !, wrong timelines!, documentation!, etc ), Engineer in what field ? are you in court all the time as an expert or what ?

Sinbad, can you reformat that as a civil question that makes sense?

Tychoo · 05-10-2015 7:02pm

Sure any fool could have wrote this

Ballynafeigh Chess · 05-10-2015 7:54pm

Tychoo wrote: »

Sure any fool could have wrote this

True! The question is what fool would consider it credible?

sinbad68 · 05-10-2015 11:01pm

Sparks wrote: »

Sinbad, can you reformat that as a civil question that makes sense?

No need for reformat as you understood every word !.

I can't wait for this agm to be over and done with. It will be decisive and one camp will win and the other lose.It would be good if both camps agree to sit down together for lunch after the AGM without quarrel and let the healing begin and IF the incumbent loses, to have a smooth transfer of power.

The irish blitz championship was added to fide rating tournament this evening and seems to be 5 min for all the moves and No increments.

https://ratings.fide.com/tournament_details.phtml?event=124010

Sparks · 06-10-2015 12:17am

sinbad68 wrote: »

No need for reformat as you understood every word !

I understood the words sinbad, they just didn't make sense the way you ordered them. What exactly are you asking?

phnompenhchess · 06-10-2015 2:54am

I've read the report and accompanying correspondance. Most of the report is unfair and its findings would be found in any other voluntary project of this nature. His reluctance to allow unqualified people access to the backend he spent so many years creating for the benefit of the ICU is absolutely reasonable. Orr has been treated harshly and should be reinstated with an apology. Further the ICU should consider a gesture of flights for two to an Irish tournament of his choosing along with accommodation and food. Unless he wins the tournament that is, in which case he can pay for his own food.

Meloc · 06-10-2015 8:45am

Hear, hear. Banning Mark Orr without following any procedure is the lowest point of what this ICU exec has done. And the report that was used to ban him is a very dubious document indeed. Software is my job, and, no offence to the author of the Aontas report, but it's clear that they are unfamiliar with some of the aspects of software technology they write about, and unfamiliar with the everyday processes of handling data in any organisation. This isn't the author's fault of course, as they were probably unaware of what the report was going to be used for subsequently.

cdeb · 07-10-2015 2:10pm

pawntof4 wrote: »

What bugs me about this is that the author of the report is unknown along with the author of the summary

This is a really key point actually.

Does anyone have an indication who wrote the report? Or even what their qualifications to write such a report are?

The report reads to me like -

ICU: "Mark, we accuse you of having done these things"
MO: "I didn't"
Report: Guilty as charged

Meanwhile, Darko is saying about it "Do you know how many people are contacting me saying that he should be reported to police". As there's no answer given, I'll hazard a guess here. None? (Existing loons excluded of course)

So this is ICU transparency. You ask a question, we'll give you a sarcastic reply which doesn't cover the question, and then you get told to get "back to box"

Tychoo · 07-10-2015 2:27pm

That Darko guy is real funny posting comments and then answering them. Reminds me of Gollum when he says "try's to trick US"

cdeb · 07-10-2015 2:40pm

In the interests of transparency, I've e-mailed the ICU Chair asking who wrote the report.

I never got a reply to my other queries; let's see what happens here I guess.

Tychoo · 07-10-2015 4:02pm

It's just a fabrication so if no one is willing to put there name to it.

anchor4208 · 07-10-2015 4:05pm

cdeb wrote: »

This is a really key point actually.

Does anyone have an indication who wrote the report? Or even what their qualifications to write such a report are?

The report reads to me like -

ICU: "Mark, we accuse you of having done these things"
MO: "I didn't"
Report: Guilty as charged

Two things. Firstly, I have a copy of an email from Pat Fitzsimons which states that the current website administrator (Andrew Kildea) wrote the report.
Secondly, your mock up of how the charges were relayed to Mark is actually paints the executive in a relatively good light. In reality, they never actually used the word accused, nor did they tell him that he was engaged in a disciplinary process. Instead they said is - here's a report, "I would welcome your comments on its contents", and that's it!

Cdeb, if you PM me your email address, I'll mail you on proof of this.

zug_zwang · 07-10-2015 5:24pm

While i have never met Mark, I recognise his massive contribution to Irish Chess over the past 10 years developing the ICU website, and indeed before that The Irish Chess Archive and that is something we should thank him for. This was long before every tom, dick and harry were able to publish on the web, and the ICU and Rating site had evolved into a great resource, but it was using a sophisticated technology which I fear many including those who wrote the report were not au fait with.

No doubt there are things which should have been done differently by all sides. From what I read, I think the treatment of Mark has been appalling, and sanctions draconian, for something which should have been settled amongst those involved with common sense and respect, in the interests of Irish Chess.

Tim Harding · 07-10-2015 6:43pm

I did write here a few weeks ago that I wasn't going to say any more here before the agm but a previous poster indicated he didn't know much about Mark J. L. Orr.

I would not say I know Mark Orr well, and indeed it must be decades since we last met, but I did share a hotel room with him for nearly three weeks when we were both on the Irish team at the 1984 olympiad in Greece. So I guess I know him better than many readers of this forum.

For the benefit of those who don't know, Mark is a distinguished scientist who worked on radio astronomy with Sir Bernard Lovell at Jodrell Bank. Then he changed track and went into artificial intelligence research and computer science at Edinburgh University, and I believe has several publications in that field. Almost incidentally, he is one of the few Irish players to earn the FIDE IM title.

Mark is also a very experienced webmaster, as has been mentioned. He has devoted a great deal of his free time and energy to Irish chess over numerous years, as many contributors here have noted.

So while the Summary Aontas report may at first sight seem damning to those who have as little knowledge of the technicalities as me, I expect that it will emerge (and not only from Mark's comments in reply) that it has been compiled and acted upon by a person or persons who are largely ignorant of the technicalities, and that most findings which to them appear sinister have totally innocent explanations.

I would not expect that referrals to Data Protection Commissioners or the police would, after a little investigation, achieve anything except to make the Irish Chess Union look foolish.

I don't know why exactly Mark refused to let Colm Daly have anything to do with the website. I doubt if it's just that he didn't consider Colm competent. Presumably there is a back story there between them, but a lot of people have found that individual to be somebody with whom they wanted to have as little to do as possible.

Mark's chief offence was probably to create a website for the ICU that was too state-of-the-art for many people to be able to manage and consequently that he became over-protective of it and wanted to appoint his own successor, whereas it would have been better to let it go and let whoever the ICU executive nominated sink or swim, probably sink. He probably didn't want Irish chess players to have to deal with the consequence of it sinking but that is what has happened.

Probably Mark has done a few mildly naughty things out of frustration such as creating an obscene password, and routing copies of emails to himself so that he could see what they were saying about him, but the way he appears to have been treated (I say appears because we have been given virtually no information) is appalling.

The appearance of the whole affair is a bit like a few ants trying to squash an elephant and on Sunday I hope we shall see what happens to such ants.

In case anyone doesn't agree with me, let's not forget that this matter is only one of several reasons why the current chairperson, P.R.O., Mr. Kildea (if he did indeed write that report), and probably some others should not be re-elected. The treatment of Gerry Graham and the Galway chess tournaments also stand out as clear black marks in my mind.

I'm not sure who else on the executive is to blame for the various bad decisions and actions, and maybe some spoke against them in private on the executive, but I suppose in the absence of information we have to assume collective responsibility.

rob51 · 07-10-2015 7:51pm

I would welcome your comments on its contents. Please respond by Friday 12th June at the
latest so that the ICU Executive can take your comments, if any, into account when considering
the report and how to address the issues involved.

Just to add a little to Tim's summary. The quote above is from Pat Fitzsimons email to Mark Orr which accompanied the report. It is copied from the ICU website.

The next step was the Executive imposed a three year ban from ICU, a five year ban from the ICU Committee and removed Mark's Honorary Life Membership by a unanimous Executive vote at the 2nd July meeting.

Presumably these were disciplinary measures yet no sign on any process. The final sentence in Article 13 of the ICU Constitution says

In exercising these and other functions, The Executive shall ensure that the requirements of natural justice are observed before exercising its powers.

Regardless of what they claim Mark did their actions completely disregarded this requirement.

anchor4208 · 08-10-2015 11:13pm

Tim Harding wrote: »

So while the Summary Aontas report may at first sight seem damning to those who have as little knowledge of the technicalities as me, I expect that it will emerge (and not only from Mark's comments in reply) that it has been compiled and acted upon by a person or persons who are largely ignorant of the technicalities, and that most findings which to them appear sinister have totally innocent explanations.
...
Probably Mark has done a few mildly naughty things out of frustration such as creating an obscene password, and routing copies of emails to himself so that he could see what they were saying about him, but the way he appears to have been treated (I say appears because we have been given virtually no information) is appalling.

The bit about the routing of the emails is worth addressing, as it definitely falls into the category of looking bad when you don't know why it is done.
I work for a large organisation. My organisation uses a third party tool which takes a copy of every single email that is sent or received by every staff member in the organisation. We do this because we are legally required to do so. The reason is that I can freely delete any emails from my mailbox. If my organisation subsequently is dealing with a freedom of information request, or a legal discovery notice, we need to be able to search all emails, including ones which staff have already deleted from their mailboxes. The only way to do this is by storing a copy of all emails in a separate repository.
I've no doubt that Mark would have been aware that most organisations do this. I've also no doubt that he was also aware that building this functionality into the ICU's mail service would be a good thing from a governance point of view. This is especially the case because of the turnover in roles. For example, the 2013 rating office might opt out of the role in 2014. When doing so, they might decide to make life easy for the person replacing them by tidying up the rating officer mailbox before they move on, so they delete all emails relating to matters they believe have been completed. The 2014 rating officer then receives a complaint from a player who played in a foreign event in 2013, which wasn't rated. If it had been rated, this person would have made it onto the Olympiad team. The person claims they emailed the results to the previous rating officer, but there's no proof. Mark Orr's system would provide that proof.
You'll note that Mark is only accused of routing the emails to another account - he's not accused of actually reading them, because there is no proof that he ever did. He does freely admit that he hadn't completely finished developing this functionality, and doesn't deny that it exists. Why would he? In the real world, what he did represents good governance, and not something which would be included in a disciplinary report.
This particular accusation is one that Darko regularly raises on the Irish Chess sewer facebook page as being one that should be referred to the Police. If the ICU had only maintained a moderately civil relationship with Mark, they could have simply asked him what this is about, and he would have told them.

The Aontas Report

Comments