Should we have a public membership list?

The English Chess Federation publishes its entire membership list for all to see (members and non-members alike can access this). This shows what type of membership people have paid for and when their membership expires. It does not of course give out private email addresses. I imagine it publishes the list so that tournament organisers can charge and subsequently pay over the correct levy for grading purposes.

Should we do something similar for the BGA?

Posted as a result of a comment on the Gotalk mailing list by Richard Mullens.



Last updated Sat Apr 02 2016. If you have any comments, please email the webmaster on web-master AT britgo DOT org.

Should we have a public membership list?

Hallo, as someone who is on the ECF Chess grading list, I consider it would be beneficial to have a list accessible by members or by general public. I do not of course have a grade myself as a newly returning player. It does not have to give personal details. Name - club - grade would be good.

We already have a public list

We already have a public list of rated players. Look across the top of any page on this site.

Council decision

We considered these comments at our Council meeting on Saturday and decided that there was insufficient benefit for the effort involved by the Membership Secretary, including managing the opt-in/outs that would seem to be necessary. [Public categorisation or publishing location information was rejected in any event.]

Tournament Organisers are reminded that they should contact the Membership Secretary to get a current list just before a tournament, so that they can check whether those claiming membership actually are.

Jon Diamond
President

Categories

I don't see why we should have to identify what type of concession someone has unless it affects the entry fees for a tournament,

S - Standard Membership C - Concessionary Membership

classifications seems suitable to me and shouldn't really upset anyone?

For with Opt-out

I'm for having a public list with the option to opt-out for those who wish not be to be publicly known.

However, this seems to slightly defeat the objective of making a list to tournament organisers. On the assumption the majority of tournament organisers are BGA members, perhaps have a non-opt-out list for members only? This may be overcomplicating it slightly though.

We should celebrate our membership !

Is BGA membership something we should be proud of ?

I think it is ! So I am wondering when we can publish the membership list (publicly) so that we can politely talk about the benefits of membership to those who aren't yet members - one of the benefits being that they are being shown as 'good eggs' by virtue of the fact that they support our cause.

Fundamentally I support the proposal

I see real merit in making public a list of names and limited geographical information such as "Mohammed Amin, Manchester." However I do not believe we should publish details of concessions such as "senior citizen rate" or "unwaged rate" or whatever concessions we apply.

The published information should only be what will help tournament organisers, and also other people involved with go.

Public membership list

The current means of membership verification at a tournament is the membership card.

By opting out of a public list, a member bears more risk of having to prove membership yet forgets to bring along the card.

No problem!

Public membership list

I'm happy with the idea of a public membership list, but only if there is an opt-out. If there isn't, the only option for anyone who doesn't want their name on the public list is to leave the BGA or refrain from joining it. I don't see what advantage we get from a compulsory public list which is worth potentially losing members.

I also agree that category should not be included - it's unnecessary and potentially sensitive.

public membership list

The categories of membership are

Standard Youth Student Family Concession Overseas (EU) Overseas (Rest of world)

I can see that some might object to being identified as concessionary members, though in my opinion, I can't see that anyone would object to being identified as belonging to any of the other categories.

The decision then rests upon how many concessionary members we have and what they think

If it is felt that membership category should not be shown then we should name each member and publish summary totals of each membership type

I feel having a public list

I feel having a public list of who is a current member is fine. I would be against having a public list of the type of member ( e.g. child/standard/pensioner etc. ).

I see no reason why a list of

I see no reason why a list of Names of Current Members of BGA should not be on the website. Agree no opt-out.

It is fairly obvious from tournament results, BGJ, etc who are likely to be members.

showing what type of membership people have paid for ? {to some degree I agree with Roger - but showing Student, Family level should be ok, there can't be many 'child' solo members - ask Paul & Sue}

and when membership expires would be useful .. I lost track, no reminders and was BGJ editor for over 6 months without paying BGA subs :)

I am in favour of a

I am in favour of a membership list with constraints on who can see what. For example: Non-member - Can see nothing! Member - Can see only what the member allows to be seen. Council Member - Can see everything.

Non-member - Can request list of members in his/her area. Must be approved by Membership Secretary. Member - Can request a list of members in his/her area- approval not required. Council Member - Can request full list but only provided as PDF with password known only to the council-member. (Restricts copying and distribution, to prevent accidental disclosure)

Note This is only an example.

Membership dislosure? [Forum

Membership dislosure?

[Forum makes up the title for me]

Not in favour of disclosing type of membership : child/concession/old fart/rich donor. These things are more private than mere membership.

In favour of making the membership list open. I don't see how anyone can be embarrassed by this. It's not the same as campaigning organisations that have opponents e.g. political parties (take your pick), Greenpeace, frackers, Hunt groups, anti-hunt groups, etc.

An opt out 'though defeats the purpose.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.