18 July 2026 · Process milestone
The Board says Clock remains an active topic of conversation
During a public interview at the WCA European Championship 2026, WCA Board members Oliver Hexter and Reuben López discussed the community response to the announced removal of Clock, the possibility of reconsideration, alternative approaches and the process that could be followed for future changes to WCA events.
This page contains selected excerpts relevant to the Clock decision-making process. It is not a complete transcript of the interview. Direct links to the original video and exact timestamps are provided for context and verification.
Context
A public discussion during the reconsideration period
The interview took place after the Board's 25 June announcement and its 1 July update stating that community feedback was receiving genuine consideration and that the matter remained an ongoing conversation.
Several answers in this interview provide a useful record of how the Board publicly described the status of the discussion before the final statement of 19 August 2026.
01
1:59:53
Could the decision be reversed?
Interviewer
“Has it changed your mind at all? Is there any chance that we might see a reversal of this decision or are you going to stay firm on it?”
Oliver Hexter · WCA Board Member
Oliver explained that the Board had received substantial feedback and was still reading and considering it. He said that no further formal decision had been made and described Clock as remaining “an active topic of conversation for us.”
02
2:02:05
Were alternatives being discussed?
Reuben López · WCA Board Member
Discussing alternative approaches to the removal of Clock, Reuben explained that these ideas had become a significant part of the conversations taking place and confirmed that they had been discussed both in Board meetings and in informal conversations between Board members.
Watch from 2:02:05 ↗“It's definitely been conversed in our board meetings and in our informal conversations between the board.”
03
2:03:20
Future event changes would follow a different process
Reuben López · WCA Board Member
Asked about possible future additions or removals from the WCA event list, Reuben said that no removal or change of tier was planned in the near future. He then addressed how any future decision would be made and communicated.
Watch from 2:03:20 ↗“It will definitely be a different process, a different way to communicate things.”
04
2:05:39
An acknowledgement — and a final message
Reuben López · WCA Board Member
In his closing message to the community, Reuben thanked people for their constructive feedback and acknowledged shortcomings in how the process had been handled.
“Things have not been done perfectly and we acknowledge that.”
Oliver Hexter · WCA Board Member
Oliver closed the discussion by emphasising that the Board was still listening to the community and to the feedback being sent to it.
Watch from 2:05:39 ↗“I also just wanted to emphasize that we are still listening.”
What the interview tells us
Reconstructing the rationale described by Oliver
Oliver's explanation suggests that the decision did not arise from one single problem specific to Clock. Instead, it resulted from a combination of strategic and operational considerations.
Oliver also referred to the other factors set out in the original announcement and described the Board as having reached its decision through a “balance of consideration.” The two highlighted steps above are not presented in the interview as an existing formal process; they identify the governance layer that would be needed to connect a strategic policy on catalogue size with the selection of a specific event for removal.
The underlying strategic premise
Adding FTO without expanding the event list
The interview records three positions at the same time: the community showed strong support for adding a new event, strong support for FTO, and opposition to removing existing events.
The Board then introduced an additional strategic premise: the official event list should not continue to grow. Oliver linked that position particularly to the scheduling demands of major championships.
That premise may explain why the Board wanted to consider changes to the catalogue, but it does not by itself explain which event should leave it. Once a policy of limiting catalogue growth is adopted, a governance mechanism is needed to determine how events enter, remain in, change status within, or leave the official portfolio.
A policy of limiting the event catalogue is not, by itself, a framework for deciding which events belong in it.
A second line of reasoning
Strategy, history and identity
Later in the interview, Oliver described Clock's recognition by the WCA as partly historical and said that it did not necessarily fit well with the rest of the official events.
“We don't want the WCA's strategy and identity to be forever bound by decisions that were made many years ago.”
This introduces a broader strategic argument: the WCA should be able to redefine its future identity rather than preserve every historical decision indefinitely.
What the interview does not tell us
The methodology used to select Clock
The interview explains several factors considered by the Board, but it does not identify the framework connecting the strategic objective of limiting catalogue growth with the decision to remove a specific event. Nor does it identify a predefined set of evaluation criteria, their relative weights, a decision threshold, or a comparative assessment applying the same methodology to every existing WCA event.
That leaves two fundamental questions:
Why must adding a new official event necessarily require removing or reducing the status of an existing one?
Once that premise was adopted, by what objective methodology was Clock selected over every other existing event?
These are questions about process, not about predetermining the outcome. A framework with clear principles, criteria and methodology would allow the same questions to be answered consistently for every future change to the WCA event portfolio.
Why this matters
The public description of an ongoing process
The significance of this interview is not that the Board explicitly said the original decision had been withdrawn. It did not.
Rather, when asked directly whether community feedback could lead to a reversal, the Board described itself as still listening, confirmed that alternatives were being discussed internally, and characterised Clock as an active topic of conversation.
During the same interview, the Board also acknowledged that future event changes would follow a different process and a different way of communicating decisions.
On 19 August 2026, the Board subsequently reaffirmed the removal of Clock, declared the decision final, and stated that no further event changes were planned without a more transparent process and greater consultation.