Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: 22. New Business

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Disagreeing with a decision is not the same as denigrating the CFC. As far as I am concerned four of the five presidents that have reigned since I returned to chess have been pretty good. Hal, David, Bob and Michael have all done their best with the situations that have presented themselves. Nobody's perfect and no one is going to be right 100% of the time. The guy in between was in over his head so I can't be too hard on him either.

    Stifling dissent leads to groupthink and bad decisions. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and relax.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    Disagreeing with a decision is not the same as denigrating the CFC. As far as I am concerned four of the five presidents that have reigned since I returned to chess have been pretty good. Hal, David, Bob and Michael have all done their best with the situations that have presented themselves. Nobody's perfect and no one is going to be right 100% of the time. The guy in between was in over his head so I can't be too hard on him either.

    Stifling dissent leads to groupthink and bad decisions. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and relax.
    Sorry, Vlad, if I was not clear enough...

    Let me try once more:

    CFC's mandate is to promote and encourage the knowledge, study and play of the game of chess in Canada.
    Unfortunately, chess in Canada is still not very popular.
    Why?
    Because Canadian chess community has too many critics and too few doers.
    As a result, chess image is not very appealing for the general public, including potential sponsors from business community and from all levels of government.

    How could we improve the situation?
    We should appear to the general public as a strong unite organization.
    All CFC Governors should use word "we" talking to the general public about CFC and its decisions.
    We all should move to the same goal, in the same direction.

    Does it mean "stifling dissent"?
    No.
    Different opinions and open discussions are welcome.
    But they have an appropriate time and place - such as this forum.
    During this online meeting we have voted on 9 motions.
    No single vote was unanimous.
    Every Governor had a chance to express his opinion and convince other Governors in its merit.

    But as soon as voting is finished, the decision is made - it becomes a low, and whole organization is going to enforce it.
    Every Governor should accept the decision of majority - no matter if he agree or disagree.
    If a Governor can't publicly say anything good about CFC's decision, it's better say nothing.
    If a Governor can't accept a CFC's decision as his own, he should resign.

    It's not about "stifling dissent", it's about protecting public image of the organization.

    Hope, this long explanation clarifies my opinion...
    Last edited by Michael Barron; 10-09-2011 at 11:40 PM.
    Thanks,
    Michael Barron

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Barron View Post
    Sorry, Vlad, if I was not clear enough...

    Let me try once more:

    CFC's mandate is to promote and encourage the knowledge, study and play of the game of chess in Canada.
    When I am doing things that "promote and encourage the knowledge, study and play of the game of chess in Canada" is when I feel that I am being most useful and successful in spreading the word about this wonderful game of ours. For the most part this occurs when I am helping kids or adults realize more of their chess potential.

    Unfortunately, chess in Canada is still not very popular.
    Why?
    Because Canadian chess community has too many critics and too few doers.
    I can't disagree with you there about the need for more doers and fewer critics but that is true about every aspect of life.

    As a result, chess image is not very appealing for the general public, including potential sponsors from business community and from all levels of government.
    I don't find that "chess is not very appealing for the general public". There is probably more chess being played now than ever before. Most of it is beyond the purview of the CFC and is being played on chess servers.

    How could we improve the situation?
    We should appear to the general public as a strong unite organization.
    There is a undercurrent of authoritarianism which rears its head from time to time in the CFC and in particular is being manifested in this thread. Whether we appear as a strong united organization or not has little bearing on the popularity of chess or the emergence of significant sponsorship. What will make chess more popular is the value proposition that we offer the general public and sponsors.

    All CFC Governors should use word "we" talking to the general public about CFC and its decisions.
    We all should move to the same goal, in the same direction.

    Does it mean "stifling dissent"?
    No.
    Different opinions and open discussions are welcome.
    But they have an appropriate time and place - such as this forum.
    And yet someone has been asked to resign while expressing those different opinions in this forum...

    If you think that I am going to defend the CFC and bite my tongue if I perceive that the CFC is doing something stupid and that this silence would be doing some kind of a service to the CFC then I believe that you are just wrong.

    During this online meeting we have voted on 9 motions.
    No single vote was unanimous.
    Every Governor had a chance to express his opinion and convince other Governors in its merit.
    With regard to the matters that we voted on at this meeting, the only one that I can see having any direct impact on popularity of CFC chess is the institution of class titles. This is working for the USCF and I suspect it will work for us as well. I would have liked to have got the senior master designation as a possibility but can live with having a system that stops at national master. It is still relevant to 98% of CFC members and potential CFC members.

    But as soon as voting is finished, the decision is made - it becomes a low, and whole organization is going to enforce it.
    Most of the matters voted on were not controversial and thus unlikely to arouse any particular emotion for or against and thus there is likely to be no blowback from any of the decisions made at this meeting.

    If you want chess to become more popular then I would suggest that the executive, the governors and the chess community should become a little more aware of the optics and politics of their decisions. Always err on the side of kindness. Try not to stomp on puppy dogs and the dreams of little girls who are photogenic, black belts in Tae Kwon Do (they didn't have black belts in Tae Kwon Do in my day) and who can belt out twenty minutes of operatic song at the drop of a hat. Its like taking that poisoned pawn that gives your opponent a long initiative. It always seems like a good idea at the time but you often live to regret it.

    Every Governor should accept the decision of majority - no matter if he agree or disagree.
    If a Governor can't publicly say anything good about CFC's decision, it's better say nothing.

    If a Governor can't accept a CFC's decision as his own, he should resign.
    We will have to agree to disagree on that. And I am not resigning since my job is to represent the interests of masters which I have been doing to the best of my abilities. The last executive and this one have been very responsive to my communications so I have no beefs in that area.

    It's not about "stifling dissent", it's about protecting public image of the organization.

    Hope, this long explanation clarifies my opinion...
    Michael, we are not masters of the universe with a Cartmanish need for others "to respect our authoritah". We are a bunch of people who love chess and are trying to promote it to anyone who will listen and can help us in that aim. If everyone remembers that then the CFC will refrain from making bad decisions and governors will not have to refrain from criticizing bad decisions.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    ...
    And yet someone has been asked to resign while expressing those different opinions in this forum...
    Sorry, Vlad, but you missed the point...

    I never suggested that someone should resign while expressing those different opinions in this forum.

    To the contrary:
    If a Governor wants to improve decisions made by the Chess Federation of Canada, he should express his concerns regarding CFC matters on this forum and on this forum only.

    Of course, if a Governor has different agenda, he could choose another forum...
    But such choice leads to the question:
    Why he is a CFC Governor?
    Thanks,
    Michael Barron

  5. #25

    Default

    Michael Barron proposed that a "CFC Governors Ethics and Code of Conduct" be established. He cited particular examples of behaviour he considered to be contrary to the ethics to be expected of a CFC Governor. This led to a discussion on what would be considered an appropriate forum for dissent (i.e. dissent should be expressed to the assembly of governors, not vented in public) and what constitutes appropriate public commentary (e.g. is decrying "deadwood governors" inappropriate?). Ultimately, he identified his concern as being that of "protecting [the] public image of the organization."

    Simon Ong proposed that the list of CFC TDs/Organizers (http://chess.ca/cfc-arbiters) be expanded, through the re-introduction of a TDOCP. Offering his own proposal, he likened the value of a TDOCP to that of the recently approved class certificate program.

    Patrick McDonald indicated that he had initiated a discussion on the Youth Committee under the thread containing his Executive Report.

    All parties may wish to have their concerns formally added to the agenda for the Winter Quarterly Meeting, either as stand-alone discussions, or in connection with the presentation of a formal motion.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •