Team England Charter Proposals *VOTING ENDED — SEE RESULTS*

[sann0638]

Just trying to help, sheesh

[Purplegoo]

I'm sure you've not taken it the wrong way - the point was that there has to be some (positive) subjectivity injected into such an exercise if a captain wanted to do it, not that we should spurn all offers of help from spreadsheet friendly, rotating Celts.

And only that one weird uncle calls me Sheesh.

[Wulfyn]

Quotes

These quotes are a bit odd? You're saying committee don't think Europen is a priority, Pipey says he never said this, you've provided a quote saying he thinks it is a priority?

Sorry for any confusion.

Pipey and mubo have both said that a united squad was discussed but that they decided to do other things instead. That demonstrates that it was not a priority. They can say it was a priority all they like, but actual real priorities are the things that people do first. Given that this was just a few comments prior I did not feel that it was worth quoting. Both mubo and pipey have (despite Pipey's point of order) both stated that it is not a priority as they thought it was best to not do anything about it in this first run.

I know we live in a post-factual world now, but let's not change the meaning of simple words like priority. Otherwise this is like when a team shirt vendor who missed a delivery date that I paid extra to have guaranteed try to insist that the word guarantee meant "try their best".

My quote was to highlight that Pipey himself made as a manifesto pledge in his candidacy that he wanted to form a joint EB and EO squad. That means people could well have voted for him to enact this. And now he has dropped it entirely from this documentation in favour of a selection method that nobody was calling for. Indeed speedingbullet even said in his candidacy vision that whilst he liked the idea of a more objective selection method he thought we should stick with a subjective one.

And here's the thing that puts people off of any sort of politics. We have people say things to get elected and then once in power enact changes that do not marry with what they said before. Neither document A nor B ties into these pledges.

Nobody has had a chance to suggest changes, either as an ammendment now or through discussion before. One of the key points of this entire process was transparency. Well how transparent was the creation of Doc B? What community involvement did the committee get in creating it? Judging by how many people who are heavily invested in TE are criticising it I'd suggest that the committee did not run their ideas past anyone first.

I thought this was supposed to be a collaborative effort, not moving from one small group of people with power to another?

I'm voting no to both. This is not what the committee was supposed to be about. They have, in my mind, failed entirely.

[mubo]

Firstly, I don't think this combative tone is particularly helpful.

There are a couple of good points here though (I agree with your point about there not being a strong community mandate to change the selection process).

I also agree the proposal could be open to amendment/more discussion before voting. If anyone is reading this, and thinking they would consider an objective selection method, but not this exact implementation, I'd encourage them to vote "No" to doc B, and post their objections to it and an alternative (if any).

[Purplegoo]

Doesn't that just land us in a mess though, Nick?

I also agree that there has not been a strong community mandate to change the selection process. However, if you open the floor to general feedback about what we might consider if we did, you'll just get 100 versions of what an 'objective' process might look like. We've seen a few already in this thread, a few more in the previous general discussion thread. What then? Are we going to vote on whichever version the committee likes best, in spite of acknowledging there is no strong community mandate for change and a recent vote not jumping in while we had the chance?

I suggest this is a yes / no vote, and if we get yes, fine (although I'm still not sure why this is a simple majority and other stuff is two thirds - did we get to the bottom of that?). If we get no, then the system that has been basically unchallenged to date should surely remain for a bit. I referred to us voting until we changed something for the sake of changing something above, and I really, really don't want us to be there, because people lose the will to live and we get the opposite of the inclusivity and buzz we keep saying we want. If this doesn't pass, surely you need to back off for a bit and think about what it means and what sort of structured process you want to put in to explore things at a later date, if at all? Or am I totally mad?

Edit: I reread that and am concerned that I'm coming off as someone opportunistically trying to shut down debate to suit my opinion. I am genuinely not doing that. If there is a community mandate for change, then I am with the community. I just don't think throwing votes up one after another until something sticks is the thing we should be doing. If you came back in 12 months with a structured plan to determine if there really is any push for change and if so, what we'd change to, I would be all for it. So long as 'we're all good' is something we would be willing to respect for a bit.

[speedingbullet]

Wulfyn, the relevant extracts from my candidacy vision are below (in quotation marks) and I’ve commented against them:

“I’d first seek consensus based decision making on the Committee but believe the Committee should be able to operate on a majority basis when needed to come to a timely decision.”

This is exactly what happened. The Committee strived for a long time to come to a consensus on a new Charter but in the end were unable to do so in terms of selection policy (Doc B). We were transparent about this when we brought the proposed documents to the community, stating that Doc B only had majority (3/5) support on the Committee.

“I’d like to see the Committee involved in team selection and give consideration to mixing subjective selection with objective selection although I believe the majority of coaches (e.g. 8 from an 11 person Team England squad for EuroBowl/EurOpen) should continue to be selected subjectively as this is likely to lead to the strongest team.”

The Doc B proposal retains subjective selection but with some objective guidance. I put a proposal to the Committee for a squad approach including both EB and EO, and with selection including elements of subjective Committee selection and objective selection. However, this didn’t receive support on the Committee and as a group we preferred to work up the proposal that we are now voting on. Compromise goes hand in hand with committee working and everyone on the committee has both tried to exert influence and been prepared to listen and make some compromises.

[Pipey]

Just to add to that.

@Wulfyn - It’s clear you don’t think we prioritised EO enough. That’s fine and you have every right to express that. Point very much taken.

My objection was the way you effectively misquoted us “I understand the comment from committee members that they did not feel like this was a priority”. As far as I’m concerned it was a priority.

As Jim says we actually had a range of opinions within the committee ranging from full selection-based integration, to having no formal TE involvement with EO at all. The proposal probably reflects a middle ground position.

Like I say it has been a good debate. Sorry to hear to talk negatively about the process. I'll see if I can get you back on board somehow...

On the matter of what happens next after these votes – I certainly don’t support revisiting the same topics over and over with constant voting on the same issues. We will have to discuss that as a committee to decide the next step after the votes, most likely when the next captain is in place.

[Wulfyn]

I apologise if my tone comes across as overly combatative. It was my intention to tread the fine line between expressing conviction without aggression. It was not my intention to insult, merely to express my perception, especially given how many friends I have on the committee.

I think everyone has heard more than enough from me now, so I'm out. Despite my convictions I do want to express my thanks to the committee for their endeavour in this.

[mubo]

Doesn't that just land us in a mess though, Nick?

I take the point- noone wants this dragging on. I was just expressing that I think it's better to vote no to a half-baked system, than vote yes to it in the hope that it can be improved later. The point of the committee was supposed to prevent people from having to go through endless machinations, so I'll do my best to prevent that.

[PeteW]

Some useful points, and in the light of pgoo's wisdom, I'll amend my stance slightly.

I think the best system is the current one, where the captain chooses their team, using whatever method they wish (given some boundaries of playing X games etc). Depending on the coaches available, the format of the EB, especially the rules, the current Euro-meta, a different process will be appropriate each year, and so to lock one down is unhelpful. Surely it would be better to vote on the captain who the populace believes will make the best selection choices? If they see fit to describe what they will do to add some objectivity into their process, then that will help the voters make up their mind? (As long as they use it, otherwise they will fall under the ire of an angry Wulfyn )

This also allows us as a community to suggest what objective measures might be useful, without getting tied up about which objective measure will produce the best team. Seems positive.

And if someone does strongly believe that the top 8 players with different races on the NAF ranking page would make the best team, then let them campaign on that basis! (Interestingly, you would get: Pgoo - woodies; Geoff - zons; bren - undead; joe - lizzies; Besters - elves; don_vito - dwarves; Me - darkies; Nick - Skaven. Lol.)

[Pipey]

Quick bump to ensure this remains in people's consciousness as we enter the second (and last) week of voting...

The votes ends last thing Sunday 17th.

[sann0638]

Hi all, I was going to reply individually to say that your votes have been counted, but the forum insists on a delay in between sending PMs, so that is more trouble than it's worth. As a hint, if your PM has moved from the Outbox to Sent, that means I've got it.

[Leipziger]

Voting ends at midnight tomorrow. Keep those votes coming!

[Nippy Longskar]

For me, as others have mentioned, the most important thing was formalising how the Team England Europen team would be formed. I think this is a key element of creating the feeling of a wider team with more opportunities for people to be selected, so I'm really hoping that at some point in the very near future this can be addressed. For all that we crowbarred it in to Cardiff it felt like the start of something really good that is now potentially going by the wayside?

On the subject of selection of the 8, I still hold that the current system but with more transparency baked in, as was seen with Purplegoo's captaincy, is the way to go. So I've voted no to the new selection system. I think if you're going to have objective criteria then it's got to be all or nothing...i.e. you get a top 8 and that's your team. And I think most would agree that's a poor way to pick a competitive EB 8. Also other countries have gone part objective and part wild card and it definitely does not create more sense of harmony, in fact the opposite as - as has been pointed out several times - people that do well and get left out have something to be specifically upset about.

[sann0638]

PMs sent out re: most recent votes.

Just to clarify, I won't be posting at midnight. Probably 7ish tomorrow morning!