What's been going on from Mark Orr's perspective

sanichi

If anyone's interested, I am going to present recent events in the
ICU from my own perspective. I was motivated to do so after seeing Fitzsimons'
recent statement that he has "only the best interests of Irish chess at heart"
which I intend to challenge. I hope what I say will convince ICU members to
think twice about voting for him at the next AGM.

I have a lot to say, so will do so in instalments to keep the size
of individual posts within reason. Let's start with just after the 2014 AGM.

August: New Webmaster

The reason why, just after last season's AGM, I announced my intention to resign as
ratings officer and webmaster, was the inclusion of Daly in the new executive and
the manner in which he was appointed. There was no vote at the AGM, Fitzsimons just
announced it as a fait accompli, even though he would have known it was
a highly controversial appointment. This was the first example of Fitzsimons
acting against the interests of Irish chess.

Letting go of something I'd worked on for 10 years was not an easy choice.
The two websites were my babies: I alone had conceived, designed and implemented
them. By late 2014 they were quite complex and required specialist knowledge to look
after. Who was going to do that in my absence?

The answer, I thought, was Jonathan O'Connor who, like me, is a professional
web developer but, more to the point, specialises in exactly the same
technologies that I'd used for the two sites. To make an analogy with chess,
Jonathan and I have very similar "opening repertoires" and he would have
had no difficulty "playing on from my position". The perfect candidate for
the good of Irish chess, one would have thought, but Fitzsimons had other
ideas.

First, Fitzsimons insisted on opening up the position to interested parties.
Fair enough, you never know who might turn up. As it happened, only one other
person applied (whom I'll refer to as P.) and so the committee had to choose
between P. and Jonathan. Having reviewed P.'s previous experience, I urged the committee to
choose Jonathan because, to my mind, he was clearly the better qualified. However,
the final result was a 7-7 tie and in that situation the chairman gets the casting
vote. Since Fitzsimons was chairman Jonathan was out. Disaster.

Looking back at that vote I'm still shocked by how it went. The person
who'd brought the sites into existence and would be expected to have a bit
of insight into the skills required for the webmaster position was strongly
supporting one candidate over the other yet 7 individuals, none of whom were
technically sophisticated, saw fit to ignore that advice. You have to wonder
about what criteria were they using to make their choices.

In the next instalment we'll find out how P. got on in his new role.

pawntof4

Looking forward to the next installment

wine and final destination

Very interesting so far! Looking forward to more

pawnpusher

SNIP Speculation from a " friend "
It is apparently all documented in some report titled..The Aontas Report. Looking forward to reading that report in full when it is made available to the public.

Ficheall

I heard he sacrifices virgin goats on a chequered stone altar on Tuesday afternoons.

pawntof4

pawnpusher wrote: »

SNIP

OMG that's absolutely shocking!!! The website was too secure!!

Regarding your other comments... They sound pretty libelous to me and I wouldn't be throwing around those accusations unless I had some sort of proof to back them up instead of the word of some 'friend'

sanichi

P. turned out to be a professional web developer (which is good) but
with only a subset of the required skill set, his experience being weighted
towards the "front end" side of things (what happens in the browser) rather
than the "backend" (what happens on the server and in the database). Not a
bad set of skills to have but unlike Jonathan he had no experience of the
main platform on which the ICU sites are built or of running a server.

He told me that he hadn't applied because he thought we would be the best
candidate but because he thought the ICU was in a bind. He was wrong
about that because, as I've said, the perfect candidate was available.
It's a shame he applied because, had he not, Fitzsimons would have had no
choice but to accept Jonathan for the post and maybe none of the "bad things"
that happened later would have occurred. But I'm getting ahead of myself:
back to November 2014.

Anyone, even Jonathan, would have had to go through a handover process with
me to show them where things were, what 3rd party services we relied on and
lots of other nitty gritty details. So P. and I started to go through things
by email. At that time the detailed "Overview of the ICU Websites" (which
you can find in the "Help" section of the main ICU site under "Administrator")
didn't exist. I wrote that later after Q. got involved (see below), but in
November I was trying to get all that across to P. by email.

Things started well enough. P. said he was learning one of the main technologies
used, but his email responses were not terribly fast and got slower as time progressed.
At the end of November he said he was going off on business to the US and would
be in touch later. That was the last email I ever received from him, despite
repeated attempts to re-establish contact. It wasn't until early in January that
Fitzsimons wrote to me and confessed that P. is "currently busy at work" and
that Q. would be taking over.

One would have thought that since P. was unavailable then the candidate
who narrowly lost the vote back in November (Jonathan) would be promoted, but
thanks to Fitzsimons that's not what happened. Instead I had to restart the
whole handover process with someone new and even more inexperienced.
Q. was a professional programmer but not a web programmer. Even worse, he
made it abundantly clear that he had no real desire to be webmaster, he was
just there on a temporary basis.

That's when I started writing the Overview mentioned previously, primarily
for Q.'s benefit but also for whoever else might come along after him.
As with P., things started OK, Q. asking questions by email and me writing
up the answers in the Overview but he wasn't the fastest responder and
eventually his emails also tailed off, again (like P.) without any
explanation.

No matter what your skill set is, the webmaster needs to either have
lots of spare time on their hands or very strong motivation to get
through the work load. In my estimate, P. didn't have the time and Q.
lacked the motivation. So by February 2015 I was still acting as web
master, furiously documenting stuff and waiting for Fitzsimons to
come up with his next candidate (obviously it wasn't going to
be Jonathan) so I could complete a handover and properly resign.

And then March 9th happened. But more on that later.

pawnpusher

This is interesting...can't wait to hear why the ICU suspended you and why you only got 3 years? I would have thought 10 years would be more appropriate..perhaps they took your previous good behavior into account?
I like to hear your account of course. I like to think I am non judge mental in these matters.

sanichi

Since the early days of the ICU websites (2004) it had been
my credit card that had paid our service providers (mainly
web hosting and domain fees) because the ICU doesn't have
a credit card. Of course, I got what I paid out back in
expenses from the ICU, but it meant that the service
providers regarded the credit card holder as the owner,
not the ICU.

In late 2014, knowing I would soon be departing, I asked the
ICU to either get a credit card of their own or let me
start using one belonging to someone else and what came
back was the details for Fitzsimons' credit card which was
duly plugged into the hosting account. This gave Fitzsimons
(and Kildea, who was the one who actually carried out the
deed) just what they needed. Kildea went to the hosting
company, presented the credit card details (the one that
had been paying the bills for the last few months), claimed
ownership and asked for the server (and therefore both sites)
to be taken down (to make sure there was no way I could
access it).

It should be noted that Kildea and Fitzsimons acted clandestinely.
They didn't tell me what they were doing, of course, but they
also kept it a secret from the rest of the executive.

Ultimately, the server was out of commission for several weeks, presumably
while they made doubly sure there was no way I could regain access when
it came back up. The longest the sites had been down in the 10 years prior
to that was for a planned upgrade in 2013 and that was just a day.
It's very sad that things came to such a juncture.

I can see that Fitzsimons probably felt frustrated at my refusal
to let his friend Daly have an editor's login on the main site
but given why I was resigning in the first place (see first post)
it would have been rather inconsistent to allow that. I ask you
to consider whether in taking such drastic action he was putting
the interests of Irish chess first. Instead, he could easily
have:

* finally let Jonathan be webmaster (see previous post), or
* put more effort into finding some other serious replacement if he was dead set against Jonathan, or
* encourage either P. or Q. (see previous post) to resume their handovers.

So at that point my time as webmaster had come to a sudden and
violent end and there was not going to be a smooth handover
as had been planned. Luckily, I'd had time to complete the
Overview documentation (mentioned in previous posts), a useful
resource as long as the sites remain in their present form.

That was the first "bad thing" that happened. But as we'll see,
there was another one just around the corner.

pawnpusher

just finished my lunch...mmm that was tasty

sorry do continue.... so Kildea and Fitzsimons now had control of your website...

pawntof4

pawnpusher wrote: »

just finished my lunch...mmm that was tasty

sorry do continue.... so Kildea and Fitzsimons now had control of your website...

Where does he claim ownership of the site??

Interesting comment about your lunch. I hope you kept the portion size small...

sinbad68

pawntof4 wrote: »

Interesting comment about your lunch. I hope you kept the portion size small...

. In witticism section, You are this week's winner. Well done !

ComDubh

SNIP: don't need a summary of the deleted post thanks. It was deleted for a reason. Cheers

reunion

pawnpusher wrote: »

This is interesting...can't wait to hear why the ICU suspended you and why you only got 3 years? I would have thought 10 years would be more appropriate..perhaps they took your previous good behavior into account?
I like to hear your account of course. I like to think I am non judge mental in these matters.

You are evidently biased.

Currently the ICU's membership have no reason why Mark Orr was banned (and only found out because Pat is due for re-election and posted the draft minutes to try to make his last election promise seem genuine). I'll also note that the ICU website isn't even updated to remove Mark from the list of HLM and the minutes still say draft!

So is Mark banned? no idea! I'm guessing Mark can post here and give us an account of what happened. Because Members weren't informed by "the most transparent ICU executive committee in years"

pawnpusher wrote: »

just finished my lunch...mmm that was tasty

sorry do continue.... so Kildea and Fitzsimons now had control of your website...

*mod note* stay on topic, if you want to post about your lunch - post in a different forum.

*Second mod note* We are in the process of proving Sanachi is actually Mark Orr. So take these posts with a pinch of salt until we know.

pawnpusher

Many have seen the Aontas report ...perhaps Sanichi would publish it here? (That would be acceptable since the report was about him he would have the permission to publish it! but that would depend if he is brave enough to let people make their own informed decisions about wheter the ICU exec was justified or unjustified or indeed too lenient in punishing him for his actions.) Of course this site is merely an outlet to express opinions but it could help those who are not familiar with the case (most here I would guess) to form a better understanding.

pawnpusher

reunion wrote: »

I'll also note that the ICU website isn't even updated to remove Mark from the list of HLM

I just went to the ICU site and only found the following honorary lifetime members

Life Members

ID Name Ttl Club
7085 Baburin, Alexander GM — Kilkenny
4564 Collins, Sam E. IM — Gonzaga
276 Crowe, Michael — Portmarnock
4017 Heidenfeld, Mark IM — Kilkenny
6741 Hennigan, Jack — Straffan
687 Kelly, Brian IM
731 Keogh, Eamon NM — Kilkenny
5157 Lopez, Alex IM — Cork
955 Murphy, Gerry — Gonzaga
3000 O’Connell, Kevin J. FM IA FST
1402 Quinn, Mark IM — Kilkenny
1535 Scarry, Herbert — Phibsboro
2042 Scott, Frank — St. Benildus
1615 Thorpe, Brian L.
5441 Wall, Gavin IM
1646 Walsh, Jim J. — Dublin


Apparently Mark has indeed been removed from the lifetime members.

brilliantboy

pawnpusher wrote: »

reunion wrote: »

I'll also note that the ICU website isn't even updated to remove Mark from the list of HLM

I just went to the ICU site and only found the following honorary lifetime members

Life Members

....

Apparently Mark has indeed been removed from the lifetime members.

He means the real ICU website, icu.ie.
The one that's too complicated for you to understand

Sparks

I have a quick question or two about that Aontas report for those who've read it:

• Who prepared it and what were their qualifications to do so?
• What were the qualifications of those who read it and formed judgements based on it; or were the judgements contained in the report?

Because this field happens to be my day job and honestly, given what's been bandied about by other people in other places, I think most people talking about this report don't actually know enough about the field itself to say the things they've been saying.

pawnpusher

Sparks wrote: »

I have a quick question or two about that Aontas report for those who've read it:

• Who prepared it and what were their qualifications to do so?
• What were the qualifications of those who read it and formed judgements based on it; or were the judgements contained in the report?

Because this field happens to be my day job and honestly, given what's been bandied about by other people in other places, I think most people talking about this report don't actually know enough about the field itself to say the things they've been saying.

interesting fishing comment Sparks... I cannot speak for others but I can tell you honestly I was genuinely shocked when I read it. Sounds like the report will get published soon ... maybe not too long to wait?

Chess_Coach

I think that Sanichi should publish it in full . But I doubt he or she will. Who can help me please ? What is the Mailgun API ? I hope those IT experts could know . Thanks

Sparks

Chess_Coach wrote: »

What is the Mailgun API ?

Here you go : Mailgun API

reunion

brilliantboy wrote: »

He means the real ICU website, icu.ie.
The one that's too complicated for you to understand

Yeap I do mean the Irish Chess Union site icu.ie; not the blog that is owned by Colm Daly. You know the icu.ie site that is the official site with FIDE and the ECU? and the chess general public? That the chair said was the official site on national radio?

Chess_Coach wrote: »

I think that Sanichi should publish it in full . But I doubt he or she will. Who can help me please ? What is the Mailgun API ? I hope those IT experts could know . Thanks

Nope. Buck stops with our "transparent" committee. Like other disciplinary cases - this could be made available so members know that this individual was banned. Mark is innocent until proven guilty.

Currently the ICU executive have run a secret trial and handed down a sentence. They need to provide proof and sadly putting them in draft minutes doesn't cut it. Members should have been notified immediately about Mark Orr's potential ban or even the fact that a disciplinary committee was formed!

Chess_Coach wrote: »

o can help me please ? What is the Mailgun API ? I hope those IT experts could know . Thanks

Ask in a different forum. Don't derail this one.

sanichi

I had hoped to end my involvement with the ICU gradually, perhaps
remaining as a source of help and advice for the new webmaster
(whoever that might be) for weeks or even months to come. But instead,
one moment I was doing the usual stuff (answering user queries, upgrading
software, polishing documentation etc.) and next thing you know I
couldn't connect to the server, the two sites were horribly broken
and there was absolutely nothing I could do about it.

Fitzsimons and Kildea weren't even able to take them down gracefully,
you just got blank screens where once the main site and the ratings site
had been. I mean, if it had been my job to shut them down, I would have at
least provided holding pages, with some information about what was going on
for the bemused users. It's awful to even think about it given how
meticulously those sites had been cared for.

As for me, that was clearly the end of the road. I was out, in the most
ignominious and shocking way imaginable. If you think that would be
punishment enough for daring to stand up to those guys, you'd be wrong,
Fitzsimons and Kildea hadn't finished with me yet.

In early June I received a copy of a report written by the
"ICU website's administrator" (whom I understand to be Kildea)
making a number of wild allegations against me including such things as:

* I was sending viruses in emails (I wouldn't even know how to do that),
* I had "almost certainly" copied the ICU database outside the executive (nonsense),
* I had kept data outside Ireland (the web server is physically in London, so what?),
* I had made a non-executive member an editor (perfectly normal),
* and so on and son on with stuff just being made up on the spot.

I was invited to comment on this rubbish, which I did, and
then subsequently in early July received notification from the ICU
secretary that the committee had considered both the report and my
response and had decided to:

* ban me for 3 years from the ICU,
* ban me for 5 years from the executive,
* rescind my free ICU membership (as an IM).

Normally, in cases like this, as has happened in recent years, an independent disciplinary
committee would have been setup (to ensure the executive was squeaky clean) but that was
dispensed with in this case.

On quizzing the secretary for further details I found out that:

* When the secretary suggested an independent committee might be the proper way to go he "was told 'No' in a rather forceful manner".
* Two members of the committee were absent, one of whom had asked for the meeting to be delayed because he was anxious to attend.
* No actual vote took place. The secretary said "the basis of which is that there was no demurring so no vote was required".
* On a request to clarify what that meant, the secretary informed me that an explanation from the chairperson himself would be forthcoming (it never arrived).

So there you have it. Starting in August 2014 with the announcement that I would be resigning (see first post)
and ending the following July with a punishment of unusual severity after a somewhat dubious committee process.
Along the way there were two aborted attempts to produce a new webmaster while the perfect candidate was overlooked.
Our beautiful websites were, for a while at least, trashed, and users were kept in the dark about what was really going on.

I argue that by his actions Fitzsimons has demonstrated that the good of Irish chess is not his top priority.

Therefore I urge all readers of this thread to go the AGM and vote him out.

pawnpusher

(I assume now of course that your ID has been verified as you have posted your final installment?) bizzare that you conveniently overlooked the reason that the exec voted Unanamously (all in favour) to punish you...so on and so on indeed...

so on and so on...well I am sure the general membership will soon enough see the Aontas report for themselves which has conclusive evidence (would explain your convenient oversight) that you installed software (and you admitted it in the report) to intercept emails etc or should I say...so on and so on? that you had a password set up for your mates who were not on the exec...(i mentioned the names earlier...don't forget... I read the report) to access the site with an obscence derogatory password with the surname of the current ICU chairman...).... honestly I think you are just going down the wrong path here and making your case worse...to a small degree I sympathise with you because of the ammount of work you put into the site but that is no excuse for the betrayal of trust that the members put in you....If only you apologised people might be more forgiving and understanding... We Irish are a forgiving lot...most of us anyway)

wine and final destination

Funny reading pawn pusher talking about leaks while talking about his "friends" inside knowledge! I particularly liked how he said he was looking forward to reading this aontas report once it was made public knowledge and is now telling us he has read it!

Sparks

I'm curious about this password thing. Are you saying the system was saving passwords on the system in cleartext?

Because the norm is that the password is put through a one-way encryption filter. So "fred" becomes "570a90bfbf8c7eab5dc5d4e26832d5b1" for example, and "test" becomes "098f6bcd4621d373cade4e832627b4f6" and you can't get the original back from the stored encrypted version. You can brute-force guess the password but that's a pretty odd thing to do as part of a website handover. So... how are people saying they know what the password was?

Lecale

Sparks wrote: »

I'm curious about this password thing. Are you saying the system was saving passwords on the system in cleartext?

He is not just saying that, he is saying they were accessing the passwords of ICU members (well at least 1 member). Pretty brave thing to admit to!

Sparks

Lecale wrote: »

He is not just saying that, he is saying they were accessing the passwords of ICU members (well at least 1 member). Pretty brave thing to admit to!

Which leaves us with the same question - how exactly?

pawnpusher

to clarify the password thing ...in the report He said up a password which gave editor rights to his mates...THAT password was a derogatory one. the first portion of the password was the current chairmans surname and the second portion of the password was an obscence word....For the time that he regained control of the ICU site only he and his pals had editor rights on the site and they used that password to access the site...its all in the report...I am sure all you IT guys will figure it out when you read the report....(but that is derailing...the main offence was intercepting and reading your (ICU members) emails (all in the report))

patience.

Sparks

So same question for the third time, how does anyone know what the password was when they're normally put through a one-way encryption?

Sparks

Also, btw, those are pretty serious charges you're talking about. Were they found to be unsubstantiated, that would be grounds for a pretty serious defamation case against those making them by Mark Orr, this being his profession.

Pete Morriss

Chess_Coach wrote: »

What is the Mailgun API ?

Even I know (in general terms) what Mailgun is. I know because Mark kept Executive members fully informed about what he was doing when he upgraded the ICU website and email facilities in 2013-14. And anybody else who was on the Executive that year and who was paying attention would know as well. (I think this is relevant to this thread; apologies if it is not.)

pawntof4

pawnpusher wrote: »

to clarify the password thing ...in the report He said up a password which gave editor rights to his mates...THAT password was a derogatory one. the first portion of the password was the current chairmans surname and the second portion of the password was an obscence word....For the time that he regained control of the ICU site only he and his pals had editor rights on the site and they used that password to access the site...its all in the report...I am sure all you IT guys will figure it out when you read the report....(but that is derailing...the main offence was intercepting and reading your (ICU members) emails (all in the report))

patience.

Do you know when this report will be published or is this another one of those "it'll all come out some day! You'll see!!!"

anchor4208

pawnpusher wrote: »

to clarify the password thing ...in the report He said up a password which gave editor rights to his mates...THAT password was a derogatory one. the first portion of the password was the current chairmans surname and the second portion of the password was an obscence word....

I haven't seen the report yet (despite pawnpusher claiming that many have seen it). I have verbally been told many of the allegations, and to be honest, they don't appear to me to hold much water. So in the end, does the whole thing come down to the quote above? Has Mark Orr been banned for three years cos he called Pat Fitzsimons a d1ck (or similar)? If so, I better be careful ...

Pete Morriss

Even if pawnpusher's claim about the password is true (and I'm not for a moment suggesting that it is), is that really grounds for a ban of the magnitude applied here? And if Mark was indeed accused of using unparliamentary language about the chairperson, that should be a reason for the chairperson withdrawing from any disciplinary proceedings, not pushing it through on his say-so without any independent committee considering the allegations. It looks more and more as if the chairperson's idea of "the best interests of Irish chess", for which he claims to have worked so hard, is really doing everything he can to harm those who threaten his own rather fragile ego.

anchor4208

Pete Morriss wrote: »

Even if pawnpusher's claim about the password is true (and I'm not for a moment suggesting that it is), is that really grounds for a ban of the magnitude applied here? And if Mark was indeed accused of using unparliamentary language about the chairperson, that should be a reason for the chairperson withdrawing from any disciplinary proceedings, not pushing it through on his say-so without any independent committee considering the allegations. It looks more and more as if the chairperson's idea of "the best interests of Irish chess", for which he claims to have worked so hard, is really doing everything he can to harm those who threaten his own rather fragile ego.

There's two issues here, and while they are linked, they really are two separate issues.
The first is whether Mark was treated fairly and reasonably by the ICU executive during the disciplinary process. The second is whether he is actually guilty of anything.

In relation to the first issue, it seems that he was very clearly treated in a manner which is unfair. There are a number of serious flaws in the process
1. The ICU deviated from the established practise of using an independent disciplinary committee to pursue the case.
2. The ICU didn't inform the accused that they were taking a disciplinary action against him until after they had reached their decision.
3. There is at least one member of the executive who has a clear, publicly stated long standing bias against Mark, which is contrary to natural justice.
4. If there were any crimes, the victims were the ICU Exec, rendering all of them ineligible to be part of the disciplinary process, again under the rules of natural justice.
5. The appeal process is identical to the original disciplinary process i.e. to the same committee.

In relation to the second issue, I've yet to hear of any issue of any significance that might justify any kind of a ban. But we're all promised that we'll get to see this report some day, and when we do, we'll be shocked. Sigh.

spaceHopper

Ok I've nothing to do with chess somehow the first post caught my eye and i got hooked on this train crash. You stood down even though you build the web site you did it for irish chess and they are the owners of the site. When they asked you for the password you had no right to with hold it. From then on you painted your self as a crank.

Lecale

spaceHopper wrote: »

Ok I've nothing to do with chess somehow the first post caught my eye and i got hooked on this train crash. You stood down even though you build the web site you did it for irish chess and they are the owners of the site. When they asked you for the password you had no right to with hold it. From then on you painted your self as a crank.

I may have missed a post, but I thought he only refused to create an editor account for Colm Daly. Presumably P&Q had admin level accounts? Nothing about pwds...
Can't say that I would agree with not giving CD an editor account, even if I hated his guts and it was mutual. If you're walking away, it's up to you how fast you go.

cdeb

On the password change, Pat mentioned to me in March/April time (the websites were down at this stage) that the ICU password had been changed to Fitzy****er123 or something like that. So that story has been around the past few months and is quite probably true.

Maybe not the most upstanding of behaviour, but hardly warrants a three-year ban.

(For the record, I don't know anything either way about the other comments - viruses, etc)

brilliantboy

cdeb wrote: »

On the password change, Pat mentioned to me in March/April time (the websites were down at this stage) that the ICU password had been changed to Fitzy****er123 or something like that. So that story has been around the past few months and is quite probably true.

Maybe not the most upstanding of behaviour, but hardly warrants a three-year ban.

(For the record, I don't know anything either way about the other comments - viruses, etc)

So if they knew what the password was then why didn't they use it? :pac:

Lecale

brilliantboy wrote: »

So if they knew what the password was then why didn't they use it? :pac:

Yeah, something doesn't add up there.

Ballynafeigh Chess

I think if the posts by Mark Orr turn out to historically correct then the next elected ICU board should offer a very humble and very public apology along with the return of his honorary membership.

spaceHopper

Lecale wrote: »

I may have missed a post, but I thought he only refused to create an editor account for Colm Daly. Presumably P&Q had admin level accounts? Nothing about pwds...
Can't say that I would agree with not giving CD an editor account, even if I hated his guts and it was mutual. If you're walking away, it's up to you how fast you go.

He said
I can see that Fitzsimons probably felt frustrated at my refusal
to let his friend Daly have an editor's login on the main site
but given why I was resigning in the first place (see first post)" "

Lecale

spaceHopper wrote: »

He said
I can see that Fitzsimons probably felt frustrated at my refusal
to let his friend Daly have an editor's login on the main site
but given why I was resigning in the first place (see first post)" "

Yes, this kind of thing says something about Irish Chess! Anyway, we have to note that this so far seems to be a technicality. For example, we know that other people had a login, and really, there is no way for Mark Orr to know if somebody decides to pass over their login to CD. So it seems like an argument for the sake of it - not something you want to have going on in your exec. I would expect that any exec member should have the entitlement of a login (of a certain level), even though they may have no idea what to do with it and I would expect other non-executive to have a login too, as is normal - it's nice for tournament organisers to be able submit their own reports.

In hindsight, previous executives should have made sure that the documentation was already there.
Political considerations (or more accurately who your mates are) should not be taken into account when choosing who does a non executive post, especially for something that's damn difficult to do.
If you are going to veto somebody having the position, you can't complain that somebody has been vetoed from having a login. What you can do instead is to go to the school playground when it's not busy; I think Sunday morning is a good time.

reunion

Lecale wrote: »

Yes, this kind of thing says something about Irish Chess! Anyway, we have to note that this so far seems to be a technicality. For example, we know that other people had a login, and really, there is no way for Mark Orr to know if somebody decides to pass over their login to CD. So it seems like an argument for the sake of it - not something you want to have going on in your exec. I would expect that any exec member should have the entitlement of a login (of a certain level), even though they may have no idea what to do with it and I would expect other non-executive to have a login too, as is normal - it's nice for tournament organisers to be able submit their own reports.

In hindsight, previous executives should have made sure that the documentation was already there.
Political considerations (or more accurately who your mates are) should not be taken into account when choosing who does a non executive post, especially for something that's damn difficult to do.
If you are going to veto somebody having the position, you can't complain that somebody has been vetoed from having a login. What you can do instead is to go to the school playground when it's not busy; I think Sunday morning is a good time.

It would be better if the ICU created a chairperson, PRO, secretary, etc. accounts to post rather than an individuals name. But maybe that's a side issue.

Mark wasn't willing to give CD a login, so he resigned. I think that is perfectly acceptable - he wasn't able to fulfil his duties so he resigned. The question remains, why were there 2 other admins who didn't give CD a login?

I also note this issue was never a matter for the executive and wasn't discussed at any executive meeting (except Mark's removal).

Lecale wrote: »

In hindsight, previous executives should have made sure that the documentation was already there.

I believe the last secretary requested handover documents for this exact reason. Mark Orr did create a handover document (along with other officers) from what I understand but the incoming executive (i.e. Pat's team) didn't use or respond or take information from this database of information. No point in having a handover document if you aren't going to read it or if you ignore it.

Lecale

Those are good points reunion, but maybe I might take issue with 1 of them. Given how much 90% of those running for exec hate each other, maybe for the official accounts you'll need the format: president2014-2015, secretary2015-2016 .

reunion

Lecale wrote: »

Those are good points reunion, but maybe I might take issue with 1 of them. Given how much 90% of those running for exec hate each other, maybe for the official accounts you'll need the format: president2014-2015, secretary2015-2016 .

I don't think so. Maybe the tag 2014-15 season or something. The minutes will say who was chair or secretary during that term but again, this is a side issue. Not something to consider atm.


On a side mod note: I can confirm this is indeed Mark Orr (or a very sophisticated imposter).

anchor4208

Chess_Coach wrote: »

I think that Sanichi should publish it in full . But I doubt he or she will.

It seems to me that Aontas report is full of inaccuracies, and is most likely defamatory. Under those circumstances, why on Earth would Mark publish it. The whole point behind our defamation laws is to prevent lies and misinformation being published about someone, so it would be stupid for Mark Orr to defame himself.
A far cleverer strategy would be to wait for the current ICU exec to publish the report, and then sue the person who releases it.
Of course, if the ICU are 100% certain that every allegation in the report is true, then what are they waiting for?

rob51

anchor4208 wrote: »

It seems to me that Aontas report is full of inaccuracies, and is most likely defamatory.

An interesting thing about the Aontas report is that no one has ever said who actually created it. It keeps being referred to as if it was done by some IT consultancy but I suspect it wasn't.

pawnpusher

spaceHopper wrote: »

Ok I've nothing to do with chess somehow the first post caught my eye and i got hooked on this train crash. You stood down even though you build the web site you did it for irish chess and they are the owners of the site. When they asked you for the password you had no right to with hold it. From then on you painted your self as a crank.

in his opening paragraph he mentions that the websites were his babies... so if he was the father ...who was the mother? or was he the mommy? (this is humour ...reunion might take offence)

but your synopsis is accurate space hopper..... His feelings of betrayal and anger stem from his misguided sense of ownership of the ICU website. It will be good to understand why he conveniently omitted to explain why he received the ban.... *snip*

reunion

pawnpusher wrote: »

but your synopsis is accurate space hopper..... His feelings of betrayal and anger stem from his misguided sense of ownership of the ICU website. It will be good to understand why he conveniently omitted to explain why he received the ban.... *snip*

The ICU omitted to explain why Mark received a ban. Mark didn't ban himself, the ICU banned a HLM in secret. They have a ton of explaining to do.

*Mod note* There is no proof AT ALL that Mark could read or has read any emails then ones he was requested to read. Unless you are providing proof to back up your statements, I will be providing a ban.