Wiki re: Goal setting

[Kevin Pacey]

Fwiw, here's the wiki re: goal setting (useful to individuals, or organizations [such as the CFC]); there is an implicit recognition of the advantage of 'dreaming big' here, perhaps:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal_setting

[Kevin Pacey]

Speaking of 'dreaming big' (perhaps), here's a link to an old CFC Discussion Board blog entry of mine re: Goals the CFC might set for itself, on whatever schedule (I later thought many of these were all but perpetually infeasible or unattractive, based partly on the little feedback that I got on chesstalk long ago, but maybe others might see something that can be salvaged, maybe if only as food for thought):

http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/en...-for-in-future

[Pierre Dénommée]

Quote from the former president of an organization that will remain unnamed: "if I set goals and don't meet them, I will be replaced as president, so it is better to set no goal". Unfortunately, the board agreed with this statement.

[Kevin Pacey]

Setting [big] goals for the CFC over time is a beginning; a clear plan must be made, which involves breaking down the goals into doable sub-components/goals.

On chesstalk years ago, I recall one denizen thought the CFC couldn't get anywhere for the foreseeable future, as far as dramatically increasing membership (i.e. with a standard membership drive) since it didn't have nearly enough money anymore for starters. I'm not sure that is a real barrier (now, or then).

Also years ago on CT, another denizen compared the many goals I suggested for the CFC at the time to 'warmed up leftovers'; he wanted something far more radical, in particular a heavy commitment to include promoting many, many chess variants under the CFC's mandate.

However mundane or far-fetched my goals for the CFC may seem, in the blog link I gave above, I'd say one of my big difficulties is seeing how to get from A to B to C, i.e. working out realistic plan(s) showing the sub-goals the CFC might try to achieve so as to reach my goals for it. Unfortunately I've never had a close to complete understanding of what's doable for the CFC (and I have a low expectation as a rule for Canadian organizers being willing to try things that they've not tried before).

So, for now, I've largely given up the idea of ever returning as a VM, since above all else the CFC needs a clear and doable plan to grow beyond a kind of stagnation (which I'm really not content with as a Canadian chess player), that's unless one argues that the CFC should always be in more or less mere survival mode since the disasterous 2004-2007 period.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Setting [big] goals for the CFC over time is a beginning; a clear plan must be made, which involves breaking down the goals into doable sub-components/goals.

On chesstalk years ago, I recall one denizen thought the CFC couldn't get anywhere for the foreseeable future, as far as dramatically increasing membership (i.e. with a standard membership drive) since it didn't have nearly enough money anymore for starters. I'm not sure that is a real barrier (now, or then).

Also years ago on CT, another denizen compared the many goals I suggested for the CFC at the time to 'warmed up leftovers'; he wanted something far more radical, in particular a heavy commitment to include promoting many, many chess variants under the CFC's mandate.

Aside from blitz, Fischer random and maybe bughouse, I don't see a big desire for chess variants. There is such a thing as diluting the brand. I took quite a few marketing classes in my undergrad commerce degree and my MBA and I continue to read extensively on the subject. Recalling a quote from Vernon Howard, those that suggest large new endeavours are the ones who should do the work. Promoting all those variants would be a full time job in and of itself. We have enough work with the potential for standard chess.

However mundane or far-fetched my goals for the CFC may seem, in the blog link I gave above, I'd say one of my big difficulties is seeing how to get from A to B to C, i.e. working out realistic plan(s) showing the sub-goals the CFC might try to achieve so as to reach my goals for it. Unfortunately I've never had a close to complete understanding of what's doable for the CFC (and I have a low expectation as a rule for Canadian organizers being willing to try things that they've not tried before).

So, for now, I've largely given up the idea of ever returning as a VM, since above all else the CFC needs a clear and doable plan to grow beyond a kind of stagnation (which I'm really not content with as a Canadian chess player), that's unless one argues that the CFC should always be in more or less mere survival mode since the disasterous 2004-2007 period.

I don't think that we are in survival mode any longer though we could use a few more volunteers.

[Kevin Pacey]

Quote from the former president of an organization that will remain unnamed: "if I set goals and don't meet them, I will be replaced as president, so it is better to set no goal". Unfortunately, the board agreed with this statement.

One former CFC Prez I've known also has an interesting view: he thinks there's no great 'army' out there in Canada of people who may be interested in chess who have never heard of the CFC, by the time they have become adults.

Similarly, with the advent of the internet, one other chess personality I've known once said to me on chesstalk 'Come on. With a little thought anyone can search on the keywords Chess Canada and immediately come up with the CFC website'.

I didn't reply to either man, but I'd be willing to guess that a lot of people don't even think at that shallow a level when it comes to the internet, or in trying to find organized Canadian chess events/clubs in any way that they might. They may simply have briefly toyed with the thought of getting into chess seriously, but then forgot to do anything about the idea. The old saying "it pays to advertise" now comes to mind.

I also wonder if the CFC website is all that informative or welcoming to a total newcomer - and would they even always get a reply if they emailed the office or someone (e.g. a VM or Canadian club rep.), if they looked on the CFC website for email addresses to send to?

Last but not least, would a lot of people out there think CFC (and weekend tournament) fees & other organized chess playing costs (including time) not worth it for them? Maybe having [more] [low cost] rated Active or Speed Chess events (or clubs specializing in them) should seriously be looked at again at some point by the CFC and/or organizers.

Perhaps involving the play of such fast TC events could help form the basis for a cheap CFC 'Recreational Membership', a hypothetical annual membership type which has been wished for but so far not been brought into existence by the CFC. Certainly at some point a chess [plus a few chess variants?!] server (or a deal with one) might also help the CFC's cause.

[Pierre Dénommée]

The Assembly of Governors already voted against the Recreational Membership out financial fear. I have never reintroduced a motion that has been defeated if I am the mover or the seconder. The new NFP Act just made it harder to introduce new classes of membership.

[Kevin Pacey]

...The new NFP Act just made it harder to introduce new classes of membership.

I fear this NFP Act will have a kind of crippling or at least slowing effect on any attempts to meaningfully change the Handbook, as I assume you refer to both paying the federal gov't for any changes the CFC ever makes, as well as the CFC having to wait for said gov't's approval of said changes. VMs will know this, and will tend to vote against any such changes when in doubt.

[Pierre Dénommée]

I fear this NFP Act will have a kind of crippling or at least slowing effect on any attempts to meaningfully change the Handbook, as I assume you refer to both paying the federal gov't for any changes the CFC ever makes, as well as the CFC having to wait for said gov't's approval of said changes. VMs will know this, and will tend to vote against any such changes when in doubt.

The CFC has Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. The former are hard to modify not only because of the price to be paid to Ottawa, but also because some changes may give voting rights to members who usually do not have such right.

Bylaws are easy to change, they are only filed with Ottawa, they are usually not reviewed.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

The CFC has Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. The former are hard to modify not only because of the price to be paid to Ottawa, but also because some changes may give voting rights to members who usually do not have such right.

Bylaws are easy to change, they are only filed with Ottawa, they are usually not reviewed.

Pierre is correct. Most constitutional changes require a two thirds vote. If there was a good reason for a change, I am sure that a two thirds vote would be possible with the right persuasion. Bylaws only require a majority vote in most cases. Adding a class of corporate members might have been a good idea at the time of the NFP changeover but the waters were muddy enough back then that we didn't want to add to the complexity.