Life In 19x19

The weaker player benefits in a small way, indirectly (for instance, I cannot exactly figure out how the tap has *any* effect on me personally). For Jie Li or Feng Yun, it might be several hundred dollars.

Then wouldn't it make more sense for those who are more impacted by it to have a say?

Unrelated: My limited understanding is that the underlying support for the tap is that the AGA helps with travel costs and such? Is there any way to have players "opt out" of travel cost support and also the tap? I'm just wondering if my understanding is correct.

hyperpape wrote:Of course you're a board member because you're interested in some sense. You care about go, you would like to be able to play go, you are a participant in the AGA, and so on.

But I'm incredulous that anyone would fail to see the difference between those interests and Feng Yun or Jie Li voting on the proposed tap. If you want to argue that there's no interesting way to draw a line in general, that might be reasonable. But in the cases mentioned so far, there's a big difference.

P.S. How are congress locations decided? I'm blanking on that.

Yes... while I have great respect for ez4u and javaness, wtf? In government, corporations, and non-profits it's standard procedure to separate personal interest from broader interests, fiduciary duties, and so on, and recuse oneself from conflicts of interest. I.e., I have an interest in efficient trash collection in my neighborhood, and you have a 5% interest in your nephew's waste disposal company, but these are totally different kinds of interest.

Things could be different in Japan and Ireland, of course... very different, if I remember The Bad Sleep Well accurately...

I wasn't saying that (perceived) conflicts of interests shouldn't be avoided. Just echoing the idea that the whole perception thing could get a bit mirky.

illluck wrote:

hyperpape wrote:If the ability to spot problems with the AGA and complain about them was what made a good board member, we'd have dozens on the L19 boards.

I think that ability is neither necessary nor sufficient, but having at least 1 member with it will definitely be beneficial.

The board currently has several members with this capability. I wouldn't say it was lacking in this area.

daniel_the_smith wrote:The board currently has several members with this capability. I wouldn't say it was lacking in this area.

I still hear some complaints about lack of transparency. Is that just an image left from the past (if transparency was ever an issue) or are there reasons why transparency is hard to achieve?

illluck wrote:

daniel_the_smith wrote:The board currently has several members with this capability. I wouldn't say it was lacking in this area.

I still hear some complaints about lack of transparency. Is that just an image left from the past (if transparency was ever an issue) or are there reasons why transparency is hard to achieve?

Transparency is hard to achieve because people are bad at modeling the informational state of other humans. From the perspective of those who already know this stuff, it's usually pretty mundane, and it's really hard to imagine how it feels to not know it. This causes people to have no idea that what they are doing doesn't seem transparent to an outsider.

Everybody is in favor of transparency, but not everyone realizes that this means you actually have to, like, voluntarily tell people stuff. Everybody thinks they are being transparent--"ask me anything, I'm an open book", etc,--but that behavior, while laudable, doesn't actually create the impression of transparency in a group that's larger than your circle of friends.

You can't be transparent without taking efforts--vastly more efforts than feel necessary--to increase the distribution of information.

Of course there are other possibilities. For example, one could want to hide something in order to take advantage of people. I honestly do not think this is occurring on the AGA board. In my experience, very few people--from their own perspective, anyway--would want to do this anyway, so it should not be the first thing that jumps to your mind in most situations such as this one.

The last thing--which does happen on the AGA board--is the desire to minimize the number of angry people. It's surprisingly unpleasant to get emails like a few that were sent after the whole tap thing, and even though I personally got many more supportive messages than hate mail, it's the unpleasant stuff that sticks in your mind.

I can think of an experiment you guys could do. I don't know if it would work, but here's two things to try in the future:

1. If the board does something you don't agree with, discuss it without denigrating the people or accusing them of making the decision in bad faith. Even if you think they actually did make it in bad faith, it is not a good way to negotiate and immediately puts them on the defensive (and it makes you look like an a*cough*e).
2. If you see someone violating #1, call them on it, or at least send a nice letter to try and compensate. Respectful disagreement can easily be expressed in a nice letter.

I think it would take a while to "train" people that it's ok to freely spread unpleasant information, but it might help. It's just an idea.

In the mean time, if you can think of anything that could be implemented as a policy that would actually help (example: the press releases), please let me know.

I like Feng Yun because she is straightforward. Sure she cares about her own interest, but who does not? Pointing out problems is not hard. But doing it non-anonymously and with possible serious consequence is not easy. Compared to other candidates, she probably has the highest interest in seeing Go flourish in US. She certainly has the experience. If she is willing to devote her time and energy, she sounds an ideal candidate to me.

Daniel, I certainly respect and appreciate your effort in improving the transparency of AGA. Here are some suggestions: 1. move this disucssoin board to AGA and linked from the home page (not buried deeply); 2. change all the regional election to direct election.

@daniel_the_smith: Thanks a lot for taking the time for such a detailed response! Your explanation makes a lot of sense. Perception of transparency does seem very difficult to achieve without a lot of effort and time spent.

One possible idea for increasing transparency may be to establish/publicize a channel through which feedback on transparency/current issues may be obtained (perhaps e-mail or forum). Then find someone (preferably not a board member, but should be fine either way) to choose the more important feedback/questions and relay them to the board. Give some time (10-20 minutes?) at each board meeting to read/respond to the feedback/questions.

I would imagine the most difficult part to be making the channel well-known so that feedback actually comes in (perhaps the e-journal can be used to advertise). Another issue might be finding someone to take the time to sort through the comments and to get the board to respond seriously and candidly - tone at the top would be a key success factor. However, this should not be unfeasible in terms of costs and can allow board members to both better understand member concerns and take transparency seriously.

Daniel, I think the number one thing the board could do is approve minutes much more quickly. I imagine at least half of the things that people are thinking of as "opaque" would be resolved if they could read the minutes the month after the meeting in question (or the week, if that's allowed by by-laws).

I've had to take minutes for an organization before, and I know how vain people can be about minutes, but you really just have to convince them to swallow their pride and approve them immediately, unless there is some gross factual error that can be amended immediately.

Number two is to not rely on the silence to inhibit criticism. I know it can be really, really demoralizing to be on the receiving end of spiteful behavior when you are being magnanimous with your time. Many institutions have a strong urge to circle the wagons for exactly this reason. But you can't imagine how bad it looks to the outside when people say "we're withholding information to shield people from criticism". Imagine a police department trying that after brutality accusations, or a public school system trying that after a cheating scandal. We naturally begin to try to imagine something unimaginably bad, that could explain the need for privacy. When instead they announce which officers/teachers/whatever are accused of what, and when the disciplinary hearing is, everyone immediately loses interest.

fantans wrote:... Daniel, I certainly respect and appreciate your effort in improving the transparency of AGA. Here are some suggestions: 1. move this discussion board to AGA and linked from the home page (not buried deeply); 2. change all the regional election to direct election.

Thank you for reading and the thoughts. Changing to direct election would require changing the bylaws, which would be a major undertaking.

illluck wrote:One possible idea for increasing transparency may be to establish/publicize a channel through which feedback on transparency/current issues may be obtained (perhaps e-mail or forum). Then find someone (preferably not a board member, but should be fine either way) to choose the more important feedback/questions and relay them to the board. Give some time (10-20 minutes?) at each board meeting to read/respond to the feedback/questions.

An interesting thought.

jts wrote:Daniel, I think the number one thing the board could do is approve minutes much more quickly.

Agreed. The recent slowness has been caused by there not being a secretary to put the minutes together.

You've taken minutes before? Do you have one free night per month? If you have any interest in this at all let me know, I will owe you the beverage of your choice (or an equivalent amount of BTC ).

jts wrote:Number two is to not rely on the silence to inhibit criticism. I know it can be really, really demoralizing to be on the receiving end of spiteful behavior when you are being magnanimous with your time. Many institutions have a strong urge to circle the wagons for exactly this reason. But you can't imagine how bad it looks to the outside when people say "we're withholding information to shield people from criticism". Imagine a police department trying that after brutality accusations, or a public school system trying that after a cheating scandal. We naturally begin to try to imagine something unimaginably bad, that could explain the need for privacy. When instead they announce which officers/teachers/whatever are accused of what, and when the disciplinary hearing is, everyone immediately loses interest.

I can imagine... it's why I ran last year in the first place.

I agree with what you are saying and will probably have more to say in response later.

I have hesitated to comment on this thread for a variety of reasons. First, I have great respect for all three candidates running in the Eastern Region - the region Feng Yun is running in. Second, since I am currently Chairman of Policy and Governance (although I have had no conversations with the President - Select on him keeping me in that position) I would not want my comments contrued to be official in any way. My Committee looks into issues when asked, we do not offer opinions when we are not.

But since this thread has touched upon the issue of conflict of issue, and some of the other arguments touch upon the way the AGA runs itself, I would like to offer some thoughts and history, coming from the person who headed the group that created the current system, but ones that are unofficial.

Note that this will be a long post - and if you find all this detail uninteresting, not only are you a person who has my respect, but you personify the core issue of running this volunteer organization. Many of us care passionately about this game, but it is a game, a game we want to play, and while we care inordinately about it - we care about playing it, many/most do not want to invest the time and energy to run an organization.

This disconnect has become more pronounced with the arrival of the internet. Before IGS, sure, I really do not want to run the AGA or run my local chapter - but someone has to, and if someone won't, then I cannot play go, and I really want to play go, so I volunteer. But now, if there is no club, there is IGS, KGS etc - I can still play.

In the old days, running a national organization was difficult with no money and small membership. The AGA was run by a self selecting Board of Directors, many of whom, for sensible convenience and because of willingness, lived in NY or at least the East. I believe these leaders did a fine job, and made every effort to spread go throughout the country, but it was only natural that folks in other parts of the country began to resent that all the power resided in NY, and it is undeniably healthy for our leadership to be more geographically diverse.

Three things mandated and caused the system to be changed. First, technology made it so much easier to work together over vast distances. Second, American Go became more than just an East Coast thing - go was spreading, and not just on the coasts. Thirdly, ING funding meant there was some real money to do some things, and folks wanted a say on how that was handled.

We went through a period where we elected a President, and appointed regional Presidents, but the ultimate power still resided with a self selecting Board. Ultimately, the membership, or at least the membership that cared, wanted to elect the Board.

A lot of hard work went into the current system. Quite frankly, I was opposed to many of the changes, but I firmly believe that the system we have in place is a great one in theory, even if it has yet to fulfill what I consider its promise. Extensive discussions were held and the conclusion was clear: If the AGA is going to continue to thrive into the future we must continue to organize on a grass roots level, that while the internet was increasingly becoming our best breeding ground for go players, AGA chapters and tournaments were both the best things the AGA can provide and best way to gather those players into members, particularly the active members that can run this organization, Congresses etc.

So we elect regional directors based on our Chapters. The brilliant Rick Mott added a weighting mechanism that allows the smallest of clubs, doing the hard lonely work to have a say and not be swamped by the larger ones. Regional Directors have and should keep in touch with these Chapter leaders and represent those concerns. We also have an at large Director directly elected by the individual members. For those who suggest all Directors be elected that way I offer this comment, referencing the nature of Go Players I mention above. Most of us just want to play. Chapter leaders are more inclined to care about governance issues, to have interacted with the AGA and to know the people involved. Statistics will show that virtually all chapter heads vote, and these votes represent a majority of members in their regions. Voting turnout for the direct election is much lower.

Again, in theory, we have a great system. In practice, there are some problems and disputes. One is a philosophical one which has yet to be resolved. One of the early proponents of this system called the directors "The Magnificent Seven". I preferred "The Seven Wise Men" (forgive the sexism). My view is that we need to create an effective and efficient orgainization under the President that runs this organization, day to day, month to month and almost year to year. My view of the Board is that the Seven act more as a Supreme Court - overlooking the President's efforts and making sure we are on the right track and formulating long term goals. While I recognized it would take a while for the balance to get where I would like it - we seem to be definitly still in "The Magnificent Seven" mode of development - "Magnificent" implying a far more active role in day to day affairs than I would prefer. This is somewhat understandable - with many of our best and most passionate people running for the Board, they naturally have their fingers in the cake.

But regardless of whether the Board is Wise or Magnificent, it is the final say for what is done in this organization. And so, Policy and Governance did make recomendations regarding this issue. I wish I still had the report. We laid out specific examples of potential conflicts and gave opinions on the situation. While some of the scenarios where unanimous, many were split.

We were concerned about the AGA being independant, and free from outside or personal interest. Independance is important, and not irrelevant, the ING Foundation had charitably sought to impose a rule set on us in the past, and we deftly negotiated an agreement that gave us great benifit and maintained our independance. Similarly, today we are receiving substantial outside interest and help from Korea, with our new pro system, but our indepencance must be maintained.

We recomended that no one should be a member of the AGA Board of Directors if they were a member of another national go organization. We also recomended that no one who made their primarily living as go player should be allowed to run for Board of Directors. Note, we were not rejecting the valued experience, aid, help or efforts of anyone - this experience and expertise could be well employed by the President within his/her administration. It was simply an expression that the top level of our organization be free from outside influence or personal gain.

Votes were split on other scenarios, but my recollection was that the majority would have prohibited, for example, Chuck Robbins from running because he was one of the owners of Slate and Shell (note: no longer). There was even some feeling that a business interest as minor as our own Daniel Smith's Joseki program should prohibit his candidacy.

These recomendations were soundly rejected by the Board - in favor of the, in my opinion, vague conflict of interest provision we have now. And let me say, LOUDLY, given my remarks above, that Chuck Robbins has been BEYOND careful in abstaining from any votes and discussions involving AGA - Vendor issues. Similarly, I am unaware, nor do I necessarily believe, that Daniel Smith has or would do anything inappropriate.

However, the problem remains. Under the current policy, a conflicted person has to recognize their own conflict and act upon it. There is really no guidance as to the nature of conflicts, nor any mechanism to enforce compliance. Furthermore, to get Machiavellian, there is absolutely nothing to prohibit a conflicted person from proplerly abstaining, but swapping votes on other issues to pursue the conflict.

Now I recognize that some may and did, see these concerns as paranoid delusions, but I felt at the time that it was important to inform the Board about these concerns, even the ones I thought were pretty out there. And so, I inform this group.

HKA wrote:Votes were split on other scenarios, but my recollection was that the majority would have prohibited, for example, Chuck Robbins from running because he was one of the owners of Slate and Shell (note: no longer). There was even some feeling that a business interest as minor as our own Daniel Smith's Joseki program should prohibit his candidacy.

These recomendations were soundly rejected by the Board - in favor of the, in my opinion, vague conflict of interest provision we have now. And let me say, LOUDLY, given my remarks above, that Chuck Robbins has been BEYOND careful in abstaining from any votes and discussions involving AGA - Vendor issues. Similarly, I am unaware, nor do I necessarily believe, that Daniel Smith has or would do anything inappropriate.

I was catching up on the recent posts (and theres been a lot since i last checked!) and was going to say this but you beat me to it. Well played sir, well played.

HKA wrote:... There was even some feeling that a business interest as minor as our own Daniel Smith's Joseki program should prohibit his candidacy.

These recomendations were soundly rejected by the Board - in favor of the, in my opinion, vague conflict of interest provision we have now. And let me say, LOUDLY, given my remarks above, that Chuck Robbins has been BEYOND careful in abstaining from any votes and discussions involving AGA - Vendor issues. Similarly, I am unaware, nor do I necessarily believe, that Daniel Smith has or would do anything inappropriate.

Sadly, I don't think I've done anything for my website since getting elected to the board. (I haven't even updated the security certificate which has expired or will soon.) I never really saw it as a money making endeavor, so that some might see it as a problem honestly didn't occur to me. Anyway, I haven't--and won't--do anything for it that I'd be unable to if nobody knew who I was...

Anyway, it is always good to hear your perspective.

Thank you all for the history and the thoughts. Conflict of interest is a problem. But if an organization starts to concern too much about it, it is a sign of unhealthiness. Why? It means the organization relies so much on the "goodness" of its directors, likely due to the lack of transparency. In my opinion, we should look more on the "alignment of interests" --- who would benefit if Go flourishes in US? and who has most stake in it? On the other hand, we should improve the transparency of the organization, having fixed rules upfront (no making up rules on the spot). It is OK for a Slate and Shell owner to participate in decision making, as long as all the purchase of equipments are made public. It is OK for a professional Go player to seat on the board, as long as he (or she) does not invent reasons to exclude people from playing.