Tweet
CFC long-term planning committee
I posted what follows below in another thread (and in the interest of not taking that thread too far off-topic, with further posts on the subject of a CFC long-term planning committee [proposed as an idea at last year's AGM, then tabled & not since formed, afaik], I thought I'd try to transfer any discussion on that to this seperate thread):
Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey:
"I hadn't pictured planning the hosting of a world event {such as a WYCC or Olympiad} as one the purposes of such a {long-term planning} committee, but I suppose that could be included as a purpose, rather than forming yet more [sub-]committees. The purpose I had imagined was to (at least primarily) plan the long-term improvement of the CFC's capabilities as an organization in any way possible, although I suppose building towards the greater realization of all of the CFC's stated goals (see Section 2 of the Handbook) could be of at least equal importance."
Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey:
"On second thought, maybe a seperate [sub-]committee for planning the hosting of a world event wouldn't be such a bad idea.
Examples of planning for long-term improvement of the CFC's capabilities would be step-by-step planning for the eventual re-establishment of a physical office that the CFC owns, or having a print magazine. Restructuring the CFC's governance could be looked at in detail.
Planning for a membership drive could not only improve the CFC's capabilities financially (since it could gain many members), but it would also build towards the greater realization of the CFC's goal of increasing the popularity of [organized] chess. Such planning could be part of the planning mentioned in the first sentence of the previous paragraph."
Viewers are invited to comment on what possible purposes for a CFC long-term planning committee might be, other than the ones I alluded to.
Some further comments on my second Original Post above:
A. Planning for re-establishing a CFC owned physical office or print magazine could be conditional on one or more successful membership drives, assuming there are no dramatic substantial donations to the CFC, nor a raiding of the CFC's Foundation, nor a dramatic rise in CFC membership levels without membership drive(s). Ways the latter might occur would include any wiser policies and actions by the CFC, which might then first of all increase the number of organizers, who might then eagerly recruit more members and organizers. I should note that this year a CFC membership committee, if there was one, seemed to be comprised of just the President, as far as my research could tell. In any event, planning for the re-establishment of an owned physical office could address such issues as possible location and a possible book & equipment business. Planning the resumption a print magazine could address whether to do so before possibly resuming a book & equipment business. In other words, some of the CFC's long-term planning can be summed up as creating a business plan, assuming it doesn't presently have a valid one.
B. Regarding planning for one or more membership drives, I posted the following long ago on the CFC Board, and I believe it is still largely valid:
"If the CFC is to do a membership drive, as planned by a committee (or not), the CFC has some thinking to do first.
Questions the CFC may wish to ask itself include:
1. What similar efforts to increase membership have been tried in the past?
2. What could the CFC try to change about itself or organized chess in Canada that would make having a CFC membership appeal to more people?
3. What resources and possible ideas for executing a drive does the CFC have at its disposal?
Regarding Q1, In the past as far back as I can recall, the CFCs efforts at anything resembling a membership drive have been largely passive. For example... members were once offered some sort of incentive for signing up new CFC members. Online advertising was tried. A national chess week of nation-wide simuls was voted for by the Governors, but there was no follow up with local clubs and organizers by the CFC Executive. Governors were not clamouring to fill the void. An officer of publicity was voted for but no one has volunteered for the position in a long time {edit: this has happily changed since}.
...{Regarding Q2, old chesstalk polls I took suggest to me the following:}
1) People may be somewhat divided on whether they want todays (faster) time controls faster/slower, but most don't seem to have that as a big concern. So the CFC need not encourage organizers to change their TCs.
2) With ratings deflation having been corrected, concerns about the competition in typical events being too weak or underrated may have been lessened.
3) Internet chess may not have pulled away as many players from over-the-board competition as some have feared.
4) The CFC (membership/rating) fees and entry fees may not be too high for the large majority of people.
5) No one who responded placed top priority on revising or reforming the CFC Handbook. Only one person thought local events were so badly organized that it was their top concern. Two people thought national events were managed badly enough to make it their first complaint. The elections procedures for Governors wasn't a top concern. In short, few are very concerned with changing CFC/tournament rules and regulations, or the record of their implimentation.
So far so good, more or less....
6) A lot of people want there to be more CFC members and more CFC events organized. This begs the question of how to aquire more CFC members (and perhaps thus more organizers) {The CFC's new presence on Facebook, together with Twittering, should help}. Until more organizers are aquired, existing organizers perhaps need to be encouraged by all means possible to work harder. A president's message coming out now and then in the CFC Newsletter might not hurt {this has since been carried out by Bob G.}.
7) A lot of people nowadays simply aren't able to play at most weekend events (and thus many might not see much value in having a CFC membership). This suggests the CFC should strive to provide other playing options and services. A CFC internet server, or another deal with ICC, is a long way off probably. Providing more support to clubs affiliated with the CFC is an option, so that these clubs could be encouraged to recruit more members. The CFC apparently is not in a position at the moment to provide many more services {these days things are a bit less gloomy, with a new website on the way}.
Regarding Q3 (what resources and possible ideas for executing a drive does the CFC have at its disposal?), the CFC has limited funds (unless it raids the Chess Foundation), so a major advertising campaign would seem hard to mount. A deal with the CMA has been suggested, but the CFC may be in a position akin to begging for favours. Off the top of my head, I would refer the CFC to my points #6 and #7 above for ideas."
C. Lastly, a long-term planning committee could be useful as a catch-all committee for studying such seemingly intractible long-term problems as the restructuring of CFC governance, as I mentioned in my second Original Post towards the beginning of this rather long post (with apologies).
Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey:
"I hadn't pictured planning the hosting of a world event {such as a WYCC or Olympiad} as one the purposes of such a {long-term planning} committee, but I suppose that could be included as a purpose, rather than forming yet more [sub-]committees. The purpose I had imagined was to (at least primarily) plan the long-term improvement of the CFC's capabilities as an organization in any way possible, although I suppose building towards the greater realization of all of the CFC's stated goals (see Section 2 of the Handbook) could be of at least equal importance."
Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey:
"On second thought, maybe a seperate [sub-]committee for planning the hosting of a world event wouldn't be such a bad idea.
Examples of planning for long-term improvement of the CFC's capabilities would be step-by-step planning for the eventual re-establishment of a physical office that the CFC owns, or having a print magazine. Restructuring the CFC's governance could be looked at in detail.
Planning for a membership drive could not only improve the CFC's capabilities financially (since it could gain many members), but it would also build towards the greater realization of the CFC's goal of increasing the popularity of [organized] chess. Such planning could be part of the planning mentioned in the first sentence of the previous paragraph."
Viewers are invited to comment on what possible purposes for a CFC long-term planning committee might be, other than the ones I alluded to.
Some further comments on my second Original Post above:
A. Planning for re-establishing a CFC owned physical office or print magazine could be conditional on one or more successful membership drives, assuming there are no dramatic substantial donations to the CFC, nor a raiding of the CFC's Foundation, nor a dramatic rise in CFC membership levels without membership drive(s). Ways the latter might occur would include any wiser policies and actions by the CFC, which might then first of all increase the number of organizers, who might then eagerly recruit more members and organizers. I should note that this year a CFC membership committee, if there was one, seemed to be comprised of just the President, as far as my research could tell. In any event, planning for the re-establishment of an owned physical office could address such issues as possible location and a possible book & equipment business. Planning the resumption a print magazine could address whether to do so before possibly resuming a book & equipment business. In other words, some of the CFC's long-term planning can be summed up as creating a business plan, assuming it doesn't presently have a valid one.
B. Regarding planning for one or more membership drives, I posted the following long ago on the CFC Board, and I believe it is still largely valid:
"If the CFC is to do a membership drive, as planned by a committee (or not), the CFC has some thinking to do first.
Questions the CFC may wish to ask itself include:
1. What similar efforts to increase membership have been tried in the past?
2. What could the CFC try to change about itself or organized chess in Canada that would make having a CFC membership appeal to more people?
3. What resources and possible ideas for executing a drive does the CFC have at its disposal?
Regarding Q1, In the past as far back as I can recall, the CFCs efforts at anything resembling a membership drive have been largely passive. For example... members were once offered some sort of incentive for signing up new CFC members. Online advertising was tried. A national chess week of nation-wide simuls was voted for by the Governors, but there was no follow up with local clubs and organizers by the CFC Executive. Governors were not clamouring to fill the void. An officer of publicity was voted for but no one has volunteered for the position in a long time {edit: this has happily changed since}.
...{Regarding Q2, old chesstalk polls I took suggest to me the following:}
1) People may be somewhat divided on whether they want todays (faster) time controls faster/slower, but most don't seem to have that as a big concern. So the CFC need not encourage organizers to change their TCs.
2) With ratings deflation having been corrected, concerns about the competition in typical events being too weak or underrated may have been lessened.
3) Internet chess may not have pulled away as many players from over-the-board competition as some have feared.
4) The CFC (membership/rating) fees and entry fees may not be too high for the large majority of people.
5) No one who responded placed top priority on revising or reforming the CFC Handbook. Only one person thought local events were so badly organized that it was their top concern. Two people thought national events were managed badly enough to make it their first complaint. The elections procedures for Governors wasn't a top concern. In short, few are very concerned with changing CFC/tournament rules and regulations, or the record of their implimentation.
So far so good, more or less....
6) A lot of people want there to be more CFC members and more CFC events organized. This begs the question of how to aquire more CFC members (and perhaps thus more organizers) {The CFC's new presence on Facebook, together with Twittering, should help}. Until more organizers are aquired, existing organizers perhaps need to be encouraged by all means possible to work harder. A president's message coming out now and then in the CFC Newsletter might not hurt {this has since been carried out by Bob G.}.
7) A lot of people nowadays simply aren't able to play at most weekend events (and thus many might not see much value in having a CFC membership). This suggests the CFC should strive to provide other playing options and services. A CFC internet server, or another deal with ICC, is a long way off probably. Providing more support to clubs affiliated with the CFC is an option, so that these clubs could be encouraged to recruit more members. The CFC apparently is not in a position at the moment to provide many more services {these days things are a bit less gloomy, with a new website on the way}.
Regarding Q3 (what resources and possible ideas for executing a drive does the CFC have at its disposal?), the CFC has limited funds (unless it raids the Chess Foundation), so a major advertising campaign would seem hard to mount. A deal with the CMA has been suggested, but the CFC may be in a position akin to begging for favours. Off the top of my head, I would refer the CFC to my points #6 and #7 above for ideas."
C. Lastly, a long-term planning committee could be useful as a catch-all committee for studying such seemingly intractible long-term problems as the restructuring of CFC governance, as I mentioned in my second Original Post towards the beginning of this rather long post (with apologies).
Comment