10.2 Olympiad Selection Rules

[Fred McKim]

Actually the best way to identify rapidly improving young player is to measure the improvement in the 12 month period leading up to the deadline. Consider two juniors both at 2475 at the deadline. One started the year at 2450, the other at 2350/ It is quite likely that the player who started the year at 2350 is presently the stronger player.

In any case fielding the strongest team possible probably means that player #5 only plays 4 or 5 rounds.

[Lyle Craver]

Given the Olympiad is less than a month away it should be clear to all that we are talking about qualification for the 2018 Olympiad. I've heard several interesting ideas worth further discussion and while I'm definitely NOT interested in dragging out this process do not feel that we're mistreating the players if we arrive at new regulations in the next two quarterly meetings. There would be more immediate need if the Olympiad was less than a year away.

I haven't firmly decided how I feel on this but would welcome Paul Leblanc's view on this subject (CFC Ratings Auditor, long time Foundation member etc)

Last of all a warm welcome to Richard who has joined the incoming board and last time I talked to him was having difficulty getting access so I'm glad he's successfully in the meeting! LC

[Victor Plotkin]

Given the Olympiad is less than a month away it should be clear to all that we are talking about qualification for the 2018 Olympiad. I've heard several interesting ideas worth further discussion and while I'm definitely NOT interested in dragging out this process do not feel that we're mistreating the players if we arrive at new regulations in the next two quarterly meetings. There would be more immediate need if the Olympiad was less than a year away.

I haven't firmly decided how I feel on this but would welcome Paul Leblanc's view on this subject (CFC Ratings Auditor, long time Foundation member etc)

Last of all a warm welcome to Richard who has joined the incoming board and last time I talked to him was having difficulty getting access so I'm glad he's successfully in the meeting! LC

Probably, I do not completely understand CFC rules, but I have a question. If a VM wants his motions to be voted this meeting, but CFC secretary does not, what are rules about it?

[Ken Craft]

Ultimately the decision would rest with the VMs. A motion could be moved and seconded and ready to be put to a vote. A member could move to postpone the motion until a future meeting. The motion to postpone would take precedence and be voted upon first.

[Victor Plotkin]

Ultimately the decision would rest with the VMs. A motion could be moved and seconded and ready to be put to a vote. A member could move to postpone the motion until a future meeting. The motion to postpone would take precedence and be voted upon first.

Thank you Ken. Is it possible to vote for 2 motions now? Vlad told me I do not need to have a seconder.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Thank you Ken. Is it possible to vote for 2 motions now?

In the normal course of events a member motion should have a very long lead time as outlined in the NFP act. I believe that this applies to motions that seek to change bylaws or the are looking to change the constitution or organization of the CFC. These motions are asking us to change how we organize the Olympiad team which is not covered in the bylaws at the moment and probably shouldn't be if we follow the intent of the NFP act. We are being asked to change the policy of how the Olympiad team is selected by the duly elected Masters Representative. Every post and private email that I have received from the executive, the voting members and the public supports making some kind of change. I believe either one of these proposals is better than the current arrangement. I believe that the correct timing of the vote should be one that allows the the youth coordinator and Quebec voting members to vote on the question.

We have three or four ways of proceeding. The first is to put the question on the ballot immediately but make sure that the voting is extended to give everyone a chance to vote. The second is to adjourn the meeting for three weeks to six weeks but not close it and to come back and deal with this question then. The third is to defer it to the next meeting which could come as quickly as four weeks to six weeks from now specifically to deal with this. The reason to extend it to six weeks would be to provide sufficient time after the Olympiad to give notice of this proposal to the new voting members. A fourth idea would be to vote now to determine which of the two mutually exclusive proposals we go ahead with and then work out the details for three to six weeks from now or for the next meeting which might be as soon as six weeks from now. I am open to each of these possibilities based on the consensus of the voting members on this question.

[Fred McKim]

I think there may be some wording issues that have to be cleared up. For example in Motion 1, it doesn't indicate how close the Canadian Closed can be to the Olympiad - for example would a CC three months before the Olympiad be used ? an exact date has to be placed here. As well someone could argue that the last Canadian Closed that "wasn't used" was maybe in 199X, if we didn't have a Canadian Closed for 2 or 3 years (for some unknown reason).

[Victor Plotkin]

I think there may be some wording issues that have to be cleared up. For example in Motion 1, it doesn't indicate how close the Canadian Closed can be to the Olympiad - for example would a CC three months before the Olympiad be used ? an exact date has to be placed here. As well someone could argue that the last Canadian Closed that "wasn't used" was maybe in 199X, if we didn't have a Canadian Closed for 2 or 3 years (for some unknown reason).

Good point, Fred. It should be: "The winner of the last Canadian Closed that took place 5-36 months prior to the Olympiad and that has not been used as a qualification for a previous Olympiad" and the same for the Women's Team.

[Victor Plotkin]

In the normal course of events a member motion should have a very long lead time as outlined in the NFP act. I believe that this applies to motions that seek to change bylaws or the are looking to change the constitution or organization of the CFC. These motions are asking us to change how we organize the Olympiad team which is not covered in the bylaws at the moment and probably shouldn't be if we follow the intent of the NFP act. We are being asked to change the policy of how the Olympiad team is selected by the duly elected Masters Representative. Every post and private email that I have received from the executive, the voting members and the public supports making some kind of change. I believe either one of these proposals is better than the current arrangement. I believe that the correct timing of the vote should be one that allows the the youth coordinator and Quebec voting members to vote on the question.

We have three or four ways of proceeding. The first is to put the question on the ballot immediately but make sure that the voting is extended to give everyone a chance to vote. The second is to adjourn the meeting for three weeks to six weeks but not close it and to come back and deal with this question then. The third is to defer it to the next meeting which could come as quickly as four weeks to six weeks from now specifically to deal with this. The reason to extend it to six weeks would be to provide sufficient time after the Olympiad to give notice of this proposal to the new voting members. A fourth idea would be to vote now to determine which of the two mutually exclusive proposals we go ahead with and then work out the details for three to six weeks from now or for the next meeting which might be as soon as six weeks from now. I am open to each of these possibilities based on the consensus of the voting members on this question.

I would prefer the first one. We can extend the meeting by 1 or 2 days to allow a new governors to participate in voting.

[Ken Craft]

I would rather vote after the Olympiad is completed.