I think the answer lies in the nature of the organisation. In my opinion no amount of reasoning to improve could have moved PICA. Their agenda is different. They are not moved to improve chess.
But I found that it is different with the new MCF. There has been significant change in the last 2 years. So I continue to give MCF the benefit of the doubt.
There is also some confusion to the idea of influencing. I read a comment from an MCF official that he cannot be influenced.
Hmmmm, does that mean he cannot be influenced or intimidated to play favoritism or he cannot be influenced by reason at all?
I think that to be a good official one must always be open to suggestions to improve. But I agree that one should not be open to influence to sabotage, to destroy etc. But one must be open to influence to build. There is a difference isnt there?
Maybe we point fingers because we feel that we cannot change anything and so we attack anything that moves in our frustration. What does the evidence of written criteria show us? I think it showed us that we can make a difference with the right organisation if we present our solutions properly and in the right spirit.