Report of the proceedings of 2016 ADM
- This topic has 22 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Report of the Proceedings of the 2016 Autumn Delegate Meeting of the Socialist Party of Great Britain held at 52 Clapham High Street, London SW4 7UN, Saturday 15 and Sunday 16 October.
Comrade P. Bennett (Manchester) was elected chair. It was agreed that the Standing Orders Committee act as Tellers.
The meeting started at 11.15 without a quorum.
Agenda:Agreed to add two further items (omitted in error).
12a Report of Head Office Organiser
17a Report of Party AuditorsRe agenda item 9, Buick (West London) questioned why Manchester’s item had been accepted without a supporting statement as required. Their note “Self-explanatory, no supporting statement needed” was not acceptable, especially as the item was not “self-explanatory”.
Browne (Standing Orders): Standing Orders did allow items without a supporting statement where the item was “self-explanatory” but agreed that in this case this might not have been self-evidently so. Agreed that members of South London branch could sit without credentials.1. Report of the Acting General Secretary: Comrade Bond, who had filled this role for the past two years, announced that he would not be continuing after the end of the year.
2. Assistant Secretary’s Report: post vacant. Unclear that a previous incumbent prepared to fill it next year.
3. Item for Discussion: Is an excess of bureaucracy and arduous procedure deterring participation in Party work and placing greater burdens on willing members?
Tenner (West London), opening, said that the epidemic of bureaucratic procedures (eg. EC agendas, too long EC Minutes, complicated committee terms of reference, too many committees) seemed to be discouraging volunteers.
Chesham (Kent & Sussex): on the contrary, EC Minutes should be more detailed.
Perrin (non-delegate): Based on those of trade union and other working class organisations, the Party had inherited procedures and an infrastructure more suited to a bigger and more widely active organisation. This made some procedures seem bureaucratic. But this was a reflection of less activity than in the past.11.25 Roll call: 11 delegates from 7 branches [K&SRB, Lancaster, Manchester, NERB, North London, South London, West London.]
4. Item for Discussion: Should Conference revert to being a decision-making forum?
Tenner (West London), opening, said that previous system where decisions were made at Conference itself by delegates mandated by branches had make Conference more interesting and worth attending. The present system, where all members voted on Conference motions in an individual ballot after Conference, could be one explanation why members, even branches, did not attend.
Deutz (non-delegate): Under the old system, voting had taken place in branches and delegates mandated how to vote. This meant that decisions had already been taken before Conference rather than at Conference and then only by those who attended their branch’s pre-Conference meeting.
Perrin (non-delegate): this was a discussion about which was more suitable: mandated delegate democracy or direct democracy? A Poll of all members had always been the highest decision-making procedure in the Party, over-riding even Conference resolutions. The present system had in effect extended Party Polls to Conference motions and was appropriate given the Party’s present size.
Kilgallon (North East): favoured a hybrid system, combining some voting at Conference and voting by the membership.
Deutz (non-delegate): since 2013 indicative votes had been taken at Conference and included with the ballot paper sent to members.
Browne (Lancaster): perhaps more latitude could be allowed for branches to propose non-binding floor resolutions. At the moment these were only in order if they arose from discussion at Conference. Could branches be allowed to come with delegates mandated to propose them?5. Report of Archives Committee: some discussion on appropriate shelving.
6. Report of Library Committee: Party’s extensive library very little used.
7. Report of Ballot Committee: No report. Discussion about the change voted by Conference last year which meant that, in the ballot for next year’s EC and Party Officers, members would have as many votes as candidates (instead, as previously, only as many as number to be elected) and could cast them either for or against.
8. Report of Blog Committee: noted.
9. Item for Discussion: In order to avoid confusion with the Trotskyists, should we stop referring to ourselves as the Socialist Party, but only use ‘Socialist Party of Great Britain’ or ‘SPGB’?
Bennett (Manchester), opening, said the context was the recent media speculation about Trotskyists infiltrating the Labour Party under Corbyn where the media kept referring to the old-Miltant Tendency (now SPEW) as ‘the Socialist Party’. We didn’t want to be confused with them.
Buick (West London): we had called ourselves ‘the Socialist Party’ since 1904 and should not surrender this name to any another group. Besides, Manchester went too far in saying we should ‘stop’ using this variant of our name altogether.
Chesham (Kent & Sussex): the present situation, where we used all three names as appropriate, was satisfactory. Both ‘The Socialist Party’ and ‘SPGB’ on the fascia of Head Office and ‘The Socialist Party of Great Britain’ on the logo adopted by last year’s Conference.
Perrin (non-delegate): there can be problems in just referring to ourselves as simply as ‘The Socialist Party’. In discussions at some point we had to make clear that we were the SPGB not SPEW.
Kilgallon (North East): SPEW was likely to split with some going to join the Labour Party, so the problem might go away anyway.
Bennett (Manchester), summing up, said he would report back to the branch that there was no support for their idea.10. Central Branch Secretary’s Report: Post vacant. Discussion on what a secretary would do, from which it emerged that the Rulebook did provide for some Central Branch representation at Conference though this hadn’t happened for some years.
11. Central Organiser’s Report.
Buick (Central Organiser): with the recent decision by East Anglia Regional branch to disband the question of the proportion of members in Central Branch arose, with this reaching 50% or more again.
From the discussion it emerged that other regional branches were having difficulties too. Discussion about whether or not we should change into a national membership organisation, though this would require a fundamental change as at the moment the branch was the basic unit of the Party.12. Education Committee: Post vacant. Noted that yet another unfilled post.
12.40 Roll Call: 13 delegates representing 8 branches [Addition of Yorkshire – without credentials]
12a. Head Office Organiser’s Report
Chesham (Kent & Sussex) raised the matter of a recent EC decision, at the request of the current HOO, to be present at Head Office for only one day a week if he wanted. This was contrary both to the post’s terms of reference which laid down 3 days presence and to a Conference resolution calling for Head Office to be open even more frequently. What was the use of Head Office in a prime spot if it was open only one day a week?
The HOO’s letter to EC and his suggested changes to the HOO’s terms of reference, deleting the requirement to be present at HO 3 days a week, was circulated to delegates.
Browne (EC) pointed out that the HOO, who came down from Norwich each week, had said he could do all the work normally required in one or two days, doing some from Norwich via the internet.
In the discussion a distinction was made between the HOO being present three days and the office being open three (or more) days.Browne (Lancaster) and Cox (Kent & Sussex) moved a floor resolution "That this ADM recommends to the EC that they attempt to arrange that HO be open to the public during the week for three days".
The floor resolution carried 12-0.13. Report of the Election Committee: discussion on the use of word “snap election” in the report. It emerged that this was no longer possible under the Fixed Term Parliament Act. Under this the next election was due in May 2020. An earlier one could be called only after the government lost a vote of confidence or two-thirds of MPs voted for one; which meant that it would hardly be a “snap” one.
14. Item for Discussion: Should there be a Party position on referendums in general?
Buick (West London), opening, said that as referendums had become more frequent in Britain the Party needed to adopt an attitude to them just as it had towards how a minority of MPs should act towards proposals put before parliament. In fact, this might proved a model as it was our policy here that Socialist MPs should be instructed by the Party to vote in accordance with how the Party judged the proposal to be in the interest of the working class and/or the furtherance of the cause of socialism. This could involve voting, for or against or abstaining. The default position on referendums was to write “Socialism” on the ballot paper but there might be occasions when we might advocate a “No” (e.g. to introduce conscription or ban a political party, as had been the subject of referendums in Australia) or even a “Yes” vote (as on social issues such as divorce, abortion, same sex unions, as in Ireland).
Perrin (non-delegate): the trend towards more referenda reflected a general discredit of parliamentary democracy and those elected and a move towards more direct democracy. We needed to take this into account.
Kilgallon (North East): we should be wary of laying down a “Party line” which members had to follow as there might be occasions when Party members could have a free vote, as for instance in referendums on local issues where they lived.
Perrin (non-delegate): this had in effect been the position taken with regard to the referendum on the Alternative Vote in 2011 when the Party itself had not adopted a position either for or against.
Browne (Lancaster) raised the question of how the Party could make its decision on a particular referendum. He suggested using the recent amendment to Rule 25 which made provision for a Branch Poll.
Buick (West London), summing up, clearly we needed a statement on the circumstances where we might advocate departing from the default position of writing “socialism” to advocate a yes, a no or a free vote.15. Report of Enquiries Committee: No report.
16. Report of Advertising Committee: Discussion on whether or not we should consider placing a display ad in Private Eye now that they had excluded us from advertising in the personal column. Also question about ads in US journals. Had been placed but without response.
17. Report of Treasurer
17a. Party Auditors’ Report
18. Report of Assistant Treasurer
19. Item for Discussion: Removing an ambiguity in Rule 2
Buick (West London), opening, said that some members seem to be interpreting “voluntary contributions” as meaning that it was voluntary to pay anything whereas the Rule’s intention was that members should pay something but of an amount of their own choosing. In the discussion some members favoured a return to the old system of paying dues. Others thought that the Rule was already clear enough. Others questioned why we were discussing dues when the Party had other, much larger sources of income.
20. Report of Audio-Visual Committee –no report only one member
Kilgallon (NERB.) AV member gave a resume on matter of Cde Maratty and the AV committee. He had joined committee to support Maratty who had then been removed.
Cox (EC member) asked if Cde Kilgallon could help with guidelines asked for by EC.
Chesham (K&SRB) gave ‘bare bones’ of EC’s dissociating the Party from a video produced by Cde Maratty – for reasons of lack of prior consultation and the use of Party emblems.
Thomas (EC member) quoted from Terms of Ref of AV committee – To produce and improve on A/V material on subjects decided by Conference or approved by the EC. A-V was a new situation not like SS or pamphlets. Video put out for ‘world & wife to see’.
Cox (EC member) reasons for EC dissociating Party from the video, not clear if was done in personal capacity or as AV. Plus some of the links given to the EC did not work and some had J. Lennon and Beatles tracks –permission for this? EC went on to remove Cde Maratty from the Committee in response to query re web links.
Whitehead (Manchester) disputed answer as not giving reason for Party being dissociated from the video.
Kilgallon (AV member) remarked on the two members of the AV Cttee resigning when Cde Maratty had been appointed to it.
Browne (EC Member) quoted from EC mins (April?) on reasons the two had resigned and
Chesham (K&SRB) disputed this as it referred to experience on the Internet Committee. They had not worked with him on AV. Reference made to video of 2 years earlier and not mentioning the Party.[10 delegates present at this time]
21. Item for Discussion: “Is Rule 17: a) relevant to the 21st century? and b) being applied correctly?”
Chesham (K&SRB), opening, said probably yes but not by the EC.
Kilgallon (NERB) disagreed with September EC decision that Rule 17 covered AV material. New set of rules needed for
21st century. Contact in Newcastle could give guidelines. Buick (West London) agreed rule needs amending; also difference between ‘control’ and ‘approve’. EC concern is with what is done ‘in name of Party’ rather than as an individual.
Perrin (non delegate) ‘content’ could replace ’literature’, need for structures to delegate function…
Thomas (EC member) On ‘literature’. Video on U Tube said not to be literature. What was meant by ‘publish’ – not limited to printed word. Add AV products to Rule 17. [11 present]
Whitehead (Manchester) 'Capitalism and Other Kid’s Stuff' not endorsed by EC.
Thomas (EC member) came across the Maratty video by way of a link from something else.
Chesham (K&SRB) video in several states of play – sometimes can be viewed. Information available from the BBC meant that care should be taken about material used. Perrin commented on use of stuff filmed on TV.Collection Saturday: £79.00
Conference adjourned at 5.30 till the next day.
Conference resumed on Sunday 16 October at 10.45
Roll Call taken at 11.25: 13 delegates from 8 branches. [As Saturday but plus West Midlands RB minus Yorkshire]
22. Item for Discussion: “Audio-Visual Productions – In addition to recordings of talks and debates, which will be of interest to many but not all, is there a need to provide more audio- visual content to get our message across to workers? If so, where should the balance lie between utilising whatever in-house capacity we have, albeit the quality may be less than perfect, as opposed to commissioning external producers (as with the 2014 election video)? What should be the measure of quality and how much money if necessary should the Party be willing to invest in such productions?”
Cox (Kent and Sussex), opening, said we might need to pay for outsiders to produce some videos as we had for that for our 2014 Euroelection broadcast.
Kilgallon (AV Committee): our videos needed to be of good quality so we shouldn’t rule this out.23. Report of Internet Committee
Chesham (Kent & Sussex) raised the question of the indefinite ban on a Party member (Comrade V. Maratty) from posting on the Party’s internet forum decided by its moderators. Should any member be banned indefinitely?
Browne (Lancaster): the comrade in question had been personally abusive to the moderators and other members of the Internet Committee, calling them “little Hitlers” and the like and had sent a piss-taking “apology” to the EC. At its October meeting the EC had not overturned the suspension.Kilgallon (North East) and Whitehead (Manchester) moved a floor resolution: “This ADM recommends the Executive Committee to overturn the indefinite ban on Comrade V. Maratty on the website internet forum, spintcom and spopen.”
Kilgallon (North East), opening, said that no Party members should be indefinitely banned from taking part in discussions on our forums
Others felt that, while a suspension might have been justified, an indefinite one was too much.
The floor resolution was carried 8-2, with 3 abstentions.24. Item for Discussion: Should the party commercially commission a whiteboard-style animation for publishing on our website?
Whitehead (Manchester), opening, explained what it was (delegates were later shown an example).
Foster (West Midlands): it was a good idea, but what would it cost? Bennett (Manchester): figures given to the branch suggested it would be in the thousands.Foster (West Midlands) and Browne (Lancaster) moved a floor resolution: “This ADM asks the AV Committee to look into the costs and potential format and content of a ‘whiteboard’ (or similar style) of video, commissioned from an outside agency.” Carried 13-0.
25. Item for Discussion: Should there be an internet radio broadcast of our existing audio recordings online either scheduled at particular times or on a looped playlist from our website?
Whitehead (Manchester) opened, but other members felt that there were practical and technical details to both scheduling at particular times and a looped playlist. The existing access to our audio recordings could, however, be made more user-friendly.
26. Report of the Socialist Standard Production Committee:
The committee presented new figures for the distribution of the Standard, correcting an error in those given in its report to Conference. Inland subscribers are 269 (not 366).
Whitehead (Manchester) asked why the July 2016 had not been a special issue devoted to the centenary of the founding of the World Socialist Party of the US.
Perrin (SSPC) replied that the committee hadn’t understood that the EC resolution meant they had to produce any issue like our own centenary one in 2004. They had published about 4 historical articles on socialism in the US as well as a contemporary one examining Bernie Sanders’ claim to be a socialist. As to the front cover, the committee had considered the vote for Brexit the previous month to be rather more relevant.27. Item for Discussion: Design of the Standard in 2017
Browne (Lancaster) explained that the two comrades who had been doing the design and layout of the Socialist Standard for over ten years had indicated they wished to have a break at the end of the year. The Party needed to find a replacement or replacements, otherwise we would to pay a printers to do this. Our present printers had quoted £600 (£25 a page). Quotes from other printers would be similar.
A message from the layout comrades was read, which stated that one volunteer replacement had been found but, ideally, a second was needed.28. Item for Discussion: The SSPC has been experimenting with Socialist Standard content, perhaps in part because of a shortage of acceptable material. Is the balance of articles likely to appeal to the first-time reader and does it consistently convey to newcomers the essentials of our case?
Tenner (West London), opening, said that a branch member, Comrade Critchfield, had circulated branches and members complaining about the lack of socialist content of some articles that had been appearing. He had had quite a few replies agreeing with him. The Socialist Standard should not carry general interest articles which could have appeared in other publications.
Whitehead (Manchester) listed articles which had been the subject of complaints, for instance, on David Bowie, Russell Brand, tipping, sport, theatre reviews.
Perrin (SSPC) replied that the committee had not been carrying out any experiment but put in what had been submitted as long as they compatible with the Party case. He didn’t deny that a shortage of articles was sometimes a factor. The committee aimed to have articles on subjects which were being discussed elsewhere at the time., e.g the death of Bowie. All articles did not have to end saying “socialism is the answer”.
Foster (West Midlands): his branch agreed with the criticism, though he himself did not. He thought the balance between political/economic and articles on social/cultural issues, both from a socialist perspective, was about right. To publish only ones on political and economic matters would make us come across as too preachy.
Mersch (South London) agreed that to fill the Standard with articles on Marxian economics would not be a best seller.
Hart (South London): her branch shared criticisms of some articles that had appeared but felt that generally the balance was about right.
There was a discussion about whether the gradual decline in sales of the Socialist Standard over the years was due to its content or to other factors. Most contributors thought that it would be due to more and more people reading it on line, a phenomenon that affected all print publications. In fact, taking this into account, maybe more people were reading it. We just don’t know.
Tenner (West London), summing up, said that the criticism was not about the balance of articles between the narrowly economic and political and more general ones, but of the content of some of the latter.29. Report of Media Committee: Cox (Committee member) appealed for more support and new members next year.
30. Report of Campaigns Committee: Foster (Committee member) said the committee still needed the help of a London member to organise meetings and events at Head Office.
31. Report of Membership Applications Committee: discussion on whether the general election last year was the reason why more applied in the first six month’s of last year compared with the same period this year.
32. Report of Premises Committee: No discussion.
33. Report of Publications Committee: A book similar to Socialism or Your Money Back, made up of articles on Russia from the Socialist Standard over the years, was planned.
34. Summer School Report: Foster (Summer School organiser) announced the dates of next year’s school: weekend of 21-23 July 2017. He asked for suggestions for a theme. Delegates suggested climate change, sceptical science, even the centenary of the Russian Revolution.
35. University and Colleges Committee Report: in the event the prototype of publication “Socialist Party Students” which the report said would hopefully be available for ADM was not ready.
36. Report of Standing Orders Committee: some dates in the report were corrected. Conference next year would be held on Saturday 29 and Sunday 30 April (which happened to be the May Day Bank Holiday weekend, so the Monday would be a holiday).
Collection Sunday: £41.15
ADM ended at 3.30.
If the meeting was inquorate all the way through then does that mean all these floor resolutions are out of order?
DJP wrote:If the meeting was inquorate all the way through then does that mean all these floor resolutions are out of order?ADM was quorate for most of the time; just. The quorum presently needed, based on the number of branches and taking into account that EARB has just dissolved, is 13.
Browne (Lancaster): the comrade in question had been personally abusive to the moderators and other members of the Internet Committee, calling them “little Hitlers” and the like and had sent a piss-taking “apology” to the EC. At its October meeting the EC had not overturned the suspension. Vin sent NO apology to the EC. Let alone a 'piss taking' one. He has misled the membership at ADM.I suggest he supplies evidence of this 'apology' or withdraws the accusation.
Comrade Browne read this statement in full which he said was among papers before the EC:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/moderators-decision-cde-marattys-indefinite-forum-ban#comment-33854
ALB wrote:Comrade Browne read this statement in full which he said was among papers before the EC:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/moderators-decision-cde-marattys-indefinite-forum-ban#comment-33854The statement in front of the EC and read out by Browne to the ADM was not sent by Vin. It was a joke posted on this forum, a 'chat room' . Whoever sent this as a statement from Vin to EC as an apology from Vin owes Vin an explanation and a reason for doing so. It is scurrilous to say the least and has lead to an extension of Vin's suspension.Furthermore, the EC should not have accepted this statement, if it was not signed off by Vin or in an email from Vin.Vin sent a simple request to the EC to have his suspension lifted and was informed by the general secretary that his suspension was the responsibility of the forum moderators. No 'apology' was sent to the EC by Vin.
His words according to minute taker
Quote:23. Report of Internet Committeeand had sent a piss-taking “apology” to the EC. At its October meeting the EC had not overturned the suspension.not 'among papers' which is not the the truth.
lindanesocialist wrote:ALB wrote:Comrade Browne read this statement in full which he said was among papers before the EC:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/moderators-decision-cde-marattys-indefinite-forum-ban#comment-33854The statement in front of the EC and read out by Browne to the ADM was not sent by Vin. It was a joke posted on this forum, a 'chat room' . Whoever sent this as a statement from Vin to EC as an apology from Vin owes Vin an explanation and a reason for doing so. It is scurrilous to say the least and has lead to an extension of Vin's suspension.Furthermore, the EC should not have accepted this statement, if it was not signed off by Vin or in an email from Vin.Vin sent a simple request to the EC to have his suspension lifted and was informed by the general secretary that his suspension was the responsibility of the forum moderators. No 'apology' was sent to the EC by Vin.
—-Original Message—-From: vinmaratty@googlemail.comDate: 19/08/2016 0:30 To: "Alan Johnstone"<alanjjohnstone@yahoo.co.uk>Cc: "SPGB Internet Committee"<spgb.internet@worldsocialism.org>, "Brian Johnson"<gravediggers@talktalk.net>, "Stephen Davison"<punksnotdead83@talktalk.net>Subj: Re: Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty's indefinite forum banCdes you have requested an 'act of contrition' Would the attached be acceptable to the EC or do you have something else in mind. If it is a little too close to the bone I can lie but that would be breaking one of the 10 commandments and possibly result in more acts of contritionOn 18 August 2016 at 02:19, <alanjjohnstone@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:After full consultation the moderators decided, Cde Vin Maratty be informed:The indefinite suspension stays in place until further notice from the EC for it to be rescinded. We advise he follows the appropriate procedure and makes a formal appeal to the EC for the ban to be rescinded. Cde V Maratty should take the initiative himself of seeking redress from the EC and present his case so to ensure it contains a sincere contrition for past conduct Agreed by Moderator 1 (Cde. Johnson), Moderator 2 (Cde. Johnstone) and Moderator 3 (Cde. Davison) Act of contrition: Please father forgive me for I have sinned. It has been two months since my last confession List of sins since my last confession 1. I have gone of topic more times than most but not all, see for example LBird (Venial Sin)2. I have challenged moderator’s decision on more than one occasion. In future will assume the divine right all moderators and promise to never question their decisions again , regardless of how ridiculous they seem (Venial Sin)3. I apologies for referring to a moderator as ‘acting like a prick’ even though the evidence was overwhelming in my favour. He issued inappropriate and biased warnings and bans(Mortal Sin)4. I will never again refer to a comrade as a ‘little Hitler’ even if he or she does act in a petty dictatorial manner. (Mortal sin) For my penance I will say six Hail Mary’s and six of the Lord’s Prayer and wear a hair shirt for three months.As per the Order of St Benedict, I will maintain a complete silence for a period of one Calendar Month
We already know what Vin said. Already pointed out by ALB and accepted. A Joke, sarcasm in reply to your silly quasi-religious request for an Act of Contrition. Where is the copy sent to the EC?
lindanesocialist wrote:We already know what Vin said. Already pointed out by ALB and accepted.Where is the copy sent to the EC?That is the email sent to the EC as requested by Vin. I repeat its the original email from Vin and not a copy of the message posted here on the forum. May I remind you the EC had requested the IC to forward all communications from Vin.I think an apology is in order.
moderator1 wrote:lindanesocialist wrote:We already know what Vin said. Already pointed out by ALB and accepted.Where is the copy sent to the EC?That is the email sent to the EC as requested by Vin. I repeat its the original email from Vin and not a copy of the message posted here on the forum. May I remind you the EC had requested the IC to forward all communications from Vin.I think an apology is in order.
It certainly is. You were selective in what you sent to the EC. Which resulted in an extension of his ban.You apologise to Vin for the over moderation and extended suspensions that you have applied to him and reinstate his account as suggested by branch delegates at the ADM.
Here is the actual email content of Vin's request to the EC and NOT read out at ADM. Selective use of information passed on to the EC by the Internet Committee http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/moderators-decision-cde-marattys-indefinite-forum-ban?page=16Post 163 Vin has taken the advice of the OP and and a friendly comrade and written to the EC. We will see you all in a few monthsWe really need to speed up our democratic processes To the EC I had not realised that the EC had suspended me from the SPGB Party forum and this led to some confusion with the IC and Moderators . I request that the EC lift my ban and reinstate my account. I undertake to abide by the rules of the forum. May I also ask that the EC reconsiders my nomination as a member of the AV committee as I feel I have something to contribute to the party and our movement? Please seehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roJc5Ytu8LY Yours for socialism vincent Maratty Attachments area Preview YouTube video Proposal Regarding Party Video Production Proposal Regarding Party Video Production
I'm a bit confused as to what the IC have done wrong now? The above post appears to say Vin sent his appeal directly to the EC himself.
If I'm reading Linda's post above correctly, it looks like the IC are getting it in the neck for forwarding on communication from Vin (see post #9) to the EC, despite the EC request for them to do so. Yet at the same time they are also apparently being selective in not sending the EC a request that Vin himself sent directly to the EC.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.