This is an extract from the Squaawk! in this week's Alekhine's Parrot, see

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm



What constitutes a real agenda for USCF's prime mission and reason to exist?
The following factors seem like key elements in the mix:

1.. Penetration of the mainstream education market.

2.. Consistent entry into mainstream media attention.

3.. Successful partnering with sponsors and joint-initiative entities,
which are neither sacrifices, nor make a monkey of the game.

4.. Insulating paid staff from consistent invasive and secret meddling
from the board, and empowering them to do 'do-able' jobs competently.

5.. Clarification of the roles and responsibilities of staff and board,
especially the relationship between Executive Director and Board President.

6.. Serious attention paid to America's investment in its own chessic
future, which means attending to its chess youth by both making adequate
financial and pedagogic provisions for their study of the game.

7.. Instituting standards of personal behavior which would, at a minimum,
be necessary in any High-School background check - otherwise such persons as
would not pass that standard, or decline to be audited, should formally have
naught to do with young chess players.

8.. Formal dispute management resolutions should be objectivized by
inclusion of an independent Ombudsman to resolve conflicts between USCF
members and other contracting parties to the organization.

9.. Competency-testing standards should be instituted for paid and un-paid
staff alike, so that at minimum people understand and assent to what is
asked of them, and their performance can be assessed.

NONE of the above are in the least unusual in non-profit or for-profit
business, and NONE of the above currently exist at USCF.

As a platform for the future, making substance of these missing issues allow
American chess some real planks to stand on. The alternative is more a dizzy
tight-rope act by would-be virtuoso personalities, and that stratagem is now
a failed one these past 25 years.



Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
This is an extract from the Squaawk! in this week's Alekhine's Parrot, see

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm



What constitutes a real agenda for USCF's prime mission and reason to exist?
The following factors seem like key elements in the mix:

1.. Penetration of the mainstream education market.

2.. Consistent entry into mainstream media attention.

3.. Successful partnering with sponsors and joint-initiative entities,
which are neither sacrifices, nor make a monkey of the game.

4.. Insulating paid staff from consistent invasive and secret meddling
from the board, and empowering them to do 'do-able' jobs competently.

5.. Clarification of the roles and responsibilities of staff and board,
especially the relationship between Executive Director and Board President.

6.. Serious attention paid to America's investment in its own chessic
future, which means attending to its chess youth by both making adequate
financial and pedagogic provisions for their study of the game.

7.. Instituting standards of personal behavior which would, at a minimum,
be necessary in any High-School background check - otherwise such persons as
would not pass that standard, or decline to be audited, should formally have
naught to do with young chess players.

8.. Formal dispute management resolutions should be objectivized by
inclusion of an independent Ombudsman to resolve conflicts between USCF
members and other contracting parties to the organization.

9.. Competency-testing standards should be instituted for paid and un-paid
staff alike, so that at minimum people understand and assent to what is
asked of them, and their performance can be assessed.

NONE of the above are in the least unusual in non-profit or for-profit
business, and NONE of the above currently exist at USCF.

As a platform for the future, making substance of these missing issues allow
American chess some real planks to stand on. The alternative is more a dizzy
tight-rope act by would-be virtuoso personalities, and that stratagem is now
a failed one these past 25 years.



Phil Innes



This is not an agenda, it is a bitch list in the form of an agenda.
This is *not* to say that items on this list are not worth doing, nor
that the bitches aren't worthwhile, but it is a very specific bitch list.

You are then attempting to convert the bitch list into an argument in a
false dichotomy and ad hominem attacks.

This is a poor form of complaint and politics. It solves nothing, and
presents your arguments poorly. I would expect this from an unqualified
candidate, but I would expect better from an intelligent observer as
yourself.

The organization's failures, of which this list contains many, is not a
failure of *this* agenda, but of a confusion of purpose, goals,
measurement and allowance of malevolence. I think that this is
intensified by the nature of chess players to think in extremes and
slippery slopes. By being both binary in nature and paranoid. And by
the dual problem of incoherent leadership, and a fundamental distrust by
people that don't even belong to the organization who are willing to
spend a lot of time attacking those that do belong.

The fact that the organization functions, and in some ways thrives even
under these extreme conditions says a lot about the underlying
legitimacy and desire for its existence. In someways this is bad
because it confuse the clouded headed in that they are doing good.

Failure to have intelligent people agree can be shown by example by
what is happening with the Denker tournament. If there was a
reasonable vision, that generated reasonable benchmarks, it would be
much much easier to just say, in balance, it makes the most sense to
do... Whatever it is that is done.

But we spend hours and hours and days, and weeks, and much more effort
than the underlying activity is worth, because we cannot agree on
benchmarks, we cannot agree on what makes sense, because ultimately we
do not understand what the vision is.

So, starting with an agenda, and especially a charged and specific
agenda like the above, is wrong.

We need to start with the Reason For Being. The Goals of the
Organization. This is not so hard, there are many examples out there,
from the ACBL to the PGA, from the WHSCA to FIDE. Heck even put Mensa
and Girl Scouts on the list of things to look at (this is *NOT* a plea
to move to the Mensa model, but to examine their process).

Determine what KIND of organization we are, and what are the appropriate
activities for this organization. DO NOT MAP TO WHAT WE ARE CURRENTLY
DOING.

Come up with a reasonable set of goals. THEN map what we do into those
goals, and determine what we can do with what we are ALREADY doing to
map into those goals. Somethings may fit, Everything may fit, Nothing
may fit.

Come up with an agenda that will move the organization to those goals.
If there is any one single item I would demand personally, is to enforce
transparency so that independently, others can assure that the
organization is moving the best they can towards those goal, and without
malevolence.

Or we could chose not to waste our time, and to hope things just work
out for the best, even though past evidence shouldn't give one any
comfort that will be the case, but we might get really really lucky.

"JohnnyT" wrote in message
. ..
Chess One wrote:
This is an extract from the Squaawk! in this week's Alekhine's Parrot,
see

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm



What constitutes a real agenda for USCF's prime mission and reason to
exist? The following factors seem like key elements in the mix:

1.. Penetration of the mainstream education market.

2.. Consistent entry into mainstream media attention.

3.. Successful partnering with sponsors and joint-initiative entities,
which are neither sacrifices, nor make a monkey of the game.

4.. Insulating paid staff from consistent invasive and secret meddling
from the board, and empowering them to do 'do-able' jobs competently.

5.. Clarification of the roles and responsibilities of staff and board,
especially the relationship between Executive Director and Board
President.

6.. Serious attention paid to America's investment in its own chessic
future, which means attending to its chess youth by both making adequate
financial and pedagogic provisions for their study of the game.

7.. Instituting standards of personal behavior which would, at a
minimum, be necessary in any High-School background check - otherwise
such persons as would not pass that standard, or decline to be audited,
should formally have naught to do with young chess players.

8.. Formal dispute management resolutions should be objectivized by
inclusion of an independent Ombudsman to resolve conflicts between USCF
members and other contracting parties to the organization.

9.. Competency-testing standards should be instituted for paid and
un-paid staff alike, so that at minimum people understand and assent to
what is asked of them, and their performance can be assessed.

NONE of the above are in the least unusual in non-profit or for-profit
business, and NONE of the above currently exist at USCF.

As a platform for the future, making substance of these missing issues
allow American chess some real planks to stand on. The alternative is
more a dizzy tight-rope act by would-be virtuoso personalities, and that
stratagem is now a failed one these past 25 years.



Phil Innes



This is not an agenda, it is a bitch list in the form of an agenda. This
is *not* to say that items on this list are not worth doing, nor that the
bitches aren't worthwhile, but it is a very specific bitch list.

Is that phrase 'bitch-list' meaningful to people where you are?

You are then attempting to convert the bitch list into an argument in a
false dichotomy and ad hominem attacks.

I mention no single personality in what I wrote. If you mean 'bitch' to mean
what's wrong, then that is indeed my summary of what's wrong, and also
abnormally wrong. It unusually wrong. Its bent. Its perverse and it is also
corrupt.

Now, rather than endlessly entertain such a vague fella as yourself, are you
actually contending that any issue I wrote is not valuable? If so, why don't
you write that specifically, rather than formations based on 'not ...
necessarily not valuable'?

Then I'll take what you say as seriously as you would like to be perceived.
Otherwise, your comments are illustrated by nothing other than whether they
are perhaps convenient to you?

If you want to make you own specific proposals why don't you start your own
thread and represent the power of your own insights? Otherwise seek the
bitch within!

Phil Innes

This is a poor form of complaint and politics. It solves nothing, and
presents your arguments poorly. I would expect this from an unqualified
candidate, but I would expect better from an intelligent observer as
yourself.

The organization's failures, of which this list contains many, is not a
failure of *this* agenda, but of a confusion of purpose, goals,
measurement and allowance of malevolence. I think that this is
intensified by the nature of chess players to think in extremes and
slippery slopes. By being both binary in nature and paranoid. And by
the dual problem of incoherent leadership, and a fundamental distrust by
people that don't even belong to the organization who are willing to spend
a lot of time attacking those that do belong.

The fact that the organization functions, and in some ways thrives even
under these extreme conditions says a lot about the underlying legitimacy
and desire for its existence. In someways this is bad because it confuse
the clouded headed in that they are doing good.

Failure to have intelligent people agree can be shown by example by what
is happening with the Denker tournament. If there was a reasonable
vision, that generated reasonable benchmarks, it would be much much easier
to just say, in balance, it makes the most sense to do... Whatever it is
that is done.

But we spend hours and hours and days, and weeks, and much more effort
than the underlying activity is worth, because we cannot agree on
benchmarks, we cannot agree on what makes sense, because ultimately we do
not understand what the vision is.

So, starting with an agenda, and especially a charged and specific agenda
like the above, is wrong.

We need to start with the Reason For Being. The Goals of the
Organization. This is not so hard, there are many examples out there,
from the ACBL to the PGA, from the WHSCA to FIDE. Heck even put Mensa and
Girl Scouts on the list of things to look at (this is *NOT* a plea to move
to the Mensa model, but to examine their process).

Determine what KIND of organization we are, and what are the appropriate
activities for this organization. DO NOT MAP TO WHAT WE ARE CURRENTLY
DOING.

Come up with a reasonable set of goals. THEN map what we do into those
goals, and determine what we can do with what we are ALREADY doing to map
into those goals. Somethings may fit, Everything may fit, Nothing may
fit.

Come up with an agenda that will move the organization to those goals. If
there is any one single item I would demand personally, is to enforce
transparency so that independently, others can assure that the
organization is moving the best they can towards those goal, and without
malevolence.

Or we could chose not to waste our time, and to hope things just work out
for the best, even though past evidence shouldn't give one any comfort
that will be the case, but we might get really really lucky.

Chess One wrote:
"JohnnyT" wrote in message
. ..
Chess One wrote:
This is an extract from the Squaawk! in this week's Alekhine's Parrot,
see

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm



What constitutes a real agenda for USCF's prime mission and reason to
exist? The following factors seem like key elements in the mix:

1.. Penetration of the mainstream education market.

2.. Consistent entry into mainstream media attention.

3.. Successful partnering with sponsors and joint-initiative entities,
which are neither sacrifices, nor make a monkey of the game.

4.. Insulating paid staff from consistent invasive and secret meddling
from the board, and empowering them to do 'do-able' jobs competently.

5.. Clarification of the roles and responsibilities of staff and board,
especially the relationship between Executive Director and Board
President.

6.. Serious attention paid to America's investment in its own chessic
future, which means attending to its chess youth by both making adequate
financial and pedagogic provisions for their study of the game.

7.. Instituting standards of personal behavior which would, at a
minimum, be necessary in any High-School background check - otherwise
such persons as would not pass that standard, or decline to be audited,
should formally have naught to do with young chess players.

8.. Formal dispute management resolutions should be objectivized by
inclusion of an independent Ombudsman to resolve conflicts between USCF
members and other contracting parties to the organization.

9.. Competency-testing standards should be instituted for paid and
un-paid staff alike, so that at minimum people understand and assent to
what is asked of them, and their performance can be assessed.

NONE of the above are in the least unusual in non-profit or for-profit
business, and NONE of the above currently exist at USCF.

As a platform for the future, making substance of these missing issues
allow American chess some real planks to stand on. The alternative is
more a dizzy tight-rope act by would-be virtuoso personalities, and that
stratagem is now a failed one these past 25 years.



Phil Innes


This is not an agenda, it is a bitch list in the form of an agenda. This
is *not* to say that items on this list are not worth doing, nor that the
bitches aren't worthwhile, but it is a very specific bitch list.

Is that phrase 'bitch-list' meaningful to people where you are?

You are then attempting to convert the bitch list into an argument in a
false dichotomy and ad hominem attacks.

I mention no single personality in what I wrote. If you mean 'bitch' to mean
what's wrong, then that is indeed my summary of what's wrong, and also
abnormally wrong. It unusually wrong. Its bent. Its perverse and it is also
corrupt.

Yes, /bitch/ as in crab or moan. Meant to be slightly derisive. No
mention at all of any personality at all...


Now, rather than endlessly entertain such a vague fella as yourself, are you
actually contending that any issue I wrote is not valuable? If so, why don't
you write that specifically, rather than formations based on 'not ...
necessarily not valuable'?

Actually, if you note, that I find not only bitching to be slightly
useless, but that rather that the tact here was a poor one as well. I
tried to be very clear about that. And that continuing on this tact, is
worse than the content. That is why I am a "vague fella", I am not
choosing to play on the court that you have built. I did state why,
and what I thought was better.

Then I'll take what you say as seriously as you would like to be perceived.
Otherwise, your comments are illustrated by nothing other than whether they
are perhaps convenient to you?

Whatever dude. I believe in the USCF as a construct. I think you do
to. I see things that are wrong. I do not find the process of
identifying all the things that are wrong a useful activity accept for
historical purposes, because it confuses many people into thinking
useful activity is happening. (A good example of this, is this "Agenda")

Historically, anytime anyone tries to fix what the organization is doing
that is "wrong" has often led to worse problems. The problem is there
is no context in which to measure direction and purpose. At least none
that is agreed upon or that can be pointed to as the mantra and
measuring stick of the organization. Without such a thing if it works
you're just lucky. In a chess-like terms it is akin to what Mr.
Heisman refers to as "hope chess". We do things because we hope they
are the right thing to do.

On top of it all, there is proven malevolence in the organization.
Which means not only do we have well meaning smart people floundering,
we have had people taking advantage of that as well.

This organization is broken at its core. You can read somewhere
earlier in the thread, where I think it can look to for guidance.


If you want to make you own specific proposals why don't you start your own
thread and represent the power of your own insights? Otherwise seek the
bitch within!

I am not even sure what you are saying here. Look, I am a member of
this organization, I wasn't for years. I personally feel that without
transparency that continuing to just hope things go ok, is wishful
thinking, and historically foolish.

If /I/ wanted to change the organization, I would change it at the core
and work outwards, because symptomatically, it appears to barely
function by nearly every measure. The fact that it functions at all, is
not a tribute to its people, but to the validity of its reason to exist,
and the desire by the public, the players, and the world organization
for it to exist. There is fundamentally no reason, other than poor
organizational energy/chi (whatever) that the organization should be
running so poorly.

I have read that others very fundamentally agree with this view and are
just marking time for the organization to fail so that it can be reborn,
as that is the only possible path. Personally, I think that people can
change it even now if they wanted to.

As someone who is currently outside the physical realm of the
organization (Washington state) I focus real activity helping out around
here, deeply wishing that the USCF was run better, and that maybe my
rating would be more accurate, that I would have more opportunities to
play and interact with the organization, for me and my family.

I have gone out of my way to participate within the USCF only to find
that the organization will not even recognize the far west scholastically.

So, that is where I stand.

And I will continue to Bitch about those that whine, especially against
those that should and could know and do better. That I bother to
shouldn't be taken poorly, but hopefully as a challenge.

JT


Phil Innes

This is a poor form of complaint and politics. It solves nothing, and
presents your arguments poorly. I would expect this from an unqualified
candidate, but I would expect better from an intelligent observer as
yourself.

The organization's failures, of which this list contains many, is not a
failure of *this* agenda, but of a confusion of purpose, goals,
measurement and allowance of malevolence. I think that this is
intensified by the nature of chess players to think in extremes and
slippery slopes. By being both binary in nature and paranoid. And by
the dual problem of incoherent leadership, and a fundamental distrust by
people that don't even belong to the organization who are willing to spend
a lot of time attacking those that do belong.

The fact that the organization functions, and in some ways thrives even
under these extreme conditions says a lot about the underlying legitimacy
and desire for its existence. In someways this is bad because it confuse
the clouded headed in that they are doing good.

Failure to have intelligent people agree can be shown by example by what
is happening with the Denker tournament. If there was a reasonable
vision, that generated reasonable benchmarks, it would be much much easier
to just say, in balance, it makes the most sense to do... Whatever it is
that is done.

But we spend hours and hours and days, and weeks, and much more effort
than the underlying activity is worth, because we cannot agree on
benchmarks, we cannot agree on what makes sense, because ultimately we do
not understand what the vision is.

So, starting with an agenda, and especially a charged and specific agenda
like the above, is wrong.

We need to start with the Reason For Being. The Goals of the
Organization. This is not so hard, there are many examples out there,
from the ACBL to the PGA, from the WHSCA to FIDE. Heck even put Mensa and
Girl Scouts on the list of things to look at (this is *NOT* a plea to move
to the Mensa model, but to examine their process).

Determine what KIND of organization we are, and what are the appropriate
activities for this organization. DO NOT MAP TO WHAT WE ARE CURRENTLY
DOING.

Come up with a reasonable set of goals. THEN map what we do into those
goals, and determine what we can do with what we are ALREADY doing to map
into those goals. Somethings may fit, Everything may fit, Nothing may
fit.

Come up with an agenda that will move the organization to those goals. If
there is any one single item I would demand personally, is to enforce
transparency so that independently, others can assure that the
organization is moving the best they can towards those goal, and without
malevolence.

Or we could chose not to waste our time, and to hope things just work out
for the best, even though past evidence shouldn't give one any comfort
that will be the case, but we might get really really lucky.

On Jun 24, 7:20 pm, JohnnyT wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"JohnnyT" wrote in message
...
Chess One wrote:
This is an extract from the Squaawk! in this week's Alekhine's Parrot,
see

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm

What constitutes a real agenda for USCF's prime mission and reason to
exist? The following factors seem like key elements in the mix:

1.. Penetration of the mainstream education market.

2.. Consistent entry into mainstream media attention.

3.. Successful partnering with sponsors and joint-initiative entities,
which are neither sacrifices, nor make a monkey of the game.

4.. Insulating paid staff from consistent invasive and secret meddling
from the board, and empowering them to do 'do-able' jobs competently.

5.. Clarification of the roles and responsibilities of staff and board,
especially the relationship between Executive Director and Board
President.

6.. Serious attention paid to America's investment in its own chessic
future, which means attending to its chess youth by both making adequate
financial and pedagogic provisions for their study of the game.

7.. Instituting standards of personal behavior which would, at a
minimum, be necessary in any High-School background check - otherwise
such persons as would not pass that standard, or decline to be audited,
should formally have naught to do with young chess players.

8.. Formal dispute management resolutions should be objectivized by
inclusion of an independent Ombudsman to resolve conflicts between USCF
members and other contracting parties to the organization.

9.. Competency-testing standards should be instituted for paid and
un-paid staff alike, so that at minimum people understand and assent to
what is asked of them, and their performance can be assessed.

NONE of the above are in the least unusual in non-profit or for-profit
business, and NONE of the above currently exist at USCF.

As a platform for the future, making substance of these missing issues
allow American chess some real planks to stand on. The alternative is
more a dizzy tight-rope act by would-be virtuoso personalities, and that
stratagem is now a failed one these past 25 years.

Phil Innes

This is not an agenda, it is a bitch list in the form of an agenda. This
is *not* to say that items on this list are not worth doing, nor that the
bitches aren't worthwhile, but it is a very specific bitch list.

Is that phrase 'bitch-list' meaningful to people where you are?

You are then attempting to convert the bitch list into an argument in a
false dichotomy and ad hominem attacks.

I mention no single personality in what I wrote. If you mean 'bitch' to mean
what's wrong, then that is indeed my summary of what's wrong, and also
abnormally wrong. It unusually wrong. Its bent. Its perverse and it is also
corrupt.

Yes, /bitch/ as in crab or moan. Meant to be slightly derisive. No
mention at all of any personality at all...

Now, rather than endlessly entertain such a vague fella as yourself, are you
actually contending that any issue I wrote is not valuable? If so, why don't
you write that specifically, rather than formations based on 'not ...
necessarily not valuable'?

Actually, if you note, that I find not only bitching to be slightly
useless, but that rather that the tact here was a poor one as well. I
tried to be very clear about that. And that continuing on this tact, is
worse than the content. That is why I am a "vague fella", I am not
choosing to play on the court that you have built. I did state why,
and what I thought was better.

Then I'll take what you say as seriously as you would like to be perceived.
Otherwise, your comments are illustrated by nothing other than whether they
are perhaps convenient to you?

Whatever dude. I believe in the USCF as a construct. I think you do
to. I see things that are wrong. I do not find the process of
identifying all the things that are wrong a useful activity accept for
historical purposes, because it confuses many people into thinking
useful activity is happening. (A good example of this, is this "Agenda")

Historically, anytime anyone tries to fix what the organization is doing
that is "wrong" has often led to worse problems. The problem is there
is no context in which to measure direction and purpose. At least none
that is agreed upon or that can be pointed to as the mantra and
measuring stick of the organization. Without such a thing if it works
you're just lucky. In a chess-like terms it is akin to what Mr.
Heisman refers to as "hope chess". We do things because we hope they
are the right thing to do.

On top of it all, there is proven malevolence in the organization.
Which means not only do we have well meaning smart people floundering,
we have had people taking advantage of that as well.

This organization is broken at its core. You can read somewhere
earlier in the thread, where I think it can look to for guidance.

If you want to make you own specific proposals why don't you start your own
thread and represent the power of your own insights? Otherwise seek the
bitch within!

I am not even sure what you are saying here. Look, I am a member of
this organization, I wasn't for years. I personally feel that without
transparency that continuing to just hope things go ok, is wishful
thinking, and historically foolish.

If /I/ wanted to change the organization, I would change it at the core
and work outwards, because symptomatically, it appears to barely
function by nearly every measure. The fact that it functions at all, is
not a tribute to its people, but to the validity of its reason to exist,
and the desire by the public, the players, and the world organization
for it to exist. There is fundamentally no reason, other than poor
organizational energy/chi (whatever) that the organization should be
running so poorly.

I have read that others very fundamentally agree with this view and are
just marking time for the organization to fail so that it can be reborn,
as that is the only possible path. Personally, I think that people can
change it even now if they wanted to.

As someone who is currently outside the physical realm of the
organization (Washington state) I focus real activity helping out around
here, deeply wishing that the USCF was run better, and that maybe my
rating would be more accurate, that I would have more opportunities to
play and interact with the organization, for me and my family.

I have gone out of my way to participate within the USCF only to find
that the organization will not even recognize the far west scholastically.

So, that is where I stand.

And I will continue to Bitch about those that whine, especially against
those that should and could know and do better. That I bother to
shouldn't be taken poorly, but hopefully as a challenge.

JT



Phil Innes

This is a poor form of complaint and politics. It solves nothing, and
presents your arguments poorly. I would expect this from an unqualified
candidate, but I would expect better from an intelligent observer as
yourself.

The organization's failures, of which this list contains many, is not a
failure of *this* agenda, but of a confusion of purpose, goals,
measurement and allowance of malevolence. I think that this is
intensified by the nature of chess players to think in extremes and
slippery slopes. By being both binary in nature and paranoid. And by
the dual problem of incoherent leadership, and a fundamental distrust by
people that don't even belong to the organization who are willing to spend
a lot of time attacking those that do belong.

The fact that the organization functions, and in some ways thrives even
under these extreme conditions says a lot about the underlying legitimacy
and desire for its existence. In someways this is bad because it confuse
the clouded headed in that they are doing good.

Failure to have intelligent people agree can be shown by example by what
is happening with the Denker tournament. If there was a reasonable
vision, that generated reasonable benchmarks, it would be much much easier
to just say, in balance, it makes the most sense to do... Whatever it is
that is done.

But we spend hours and hours and days, and weeks, and much more effort
than the underlying activity is worth, because we cannot agree on
benchmarks, we cannot agree on what makes sense, because ultimately we do
not understand what the vision is.

So, starting with an agenda, and especially a charged and specific agenda
like the above, is wrong.

We need to start with the Reason For Being. The Goals of the
Organization. This is not so hard, there are many examples out there,
from the ACBL to the PGA, from the WHSCA to FIDE. Heck even put Mensa and
Girl Scouts on the list of things to look at (this is *NOT* a plea to move
to the Mensa model, but to examine their process).

Determine what KIND of organization we are, and what are the appropriate
activities for this organization. DO NOT MAP TO WHAT WE ARE CURRENTLY
DOING.

The organization HAS a mission statement. Isnt that what it IS?



Come up with a reasonable set of goals. THEN map what we do into those
goals, and determine what we can do with what we are ALREADY doing to map
into those goals. Somethings may fit, Everything may fit, Nothing may
fit.

Come up with an agenda that will move the organization to those goals. If
there is any one single item I would demand personally, is to enforce
transparency so that independently, others can assure that

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fixing the orgazination at it's core assumes the core is not already
rotten. I do not know if that is the case. I would suggest looking to
see if the mission statement is being met first.
Then I would devise a method to govern effectivly. The current
organization does not permit this.

"JohnnyT" wrote in message
. ..

Whatever dude. I believe in the USCF as a construct. I think you do to.
I see things that are wrong. I do not find the process of identifying
all the things that are wrong a useful activity accept for historical
purposes, because it confuses many people into thinking useful activity is
happening. (A good example of this, is this "Agenda")

I am suggesting that to build anything at all you need a foundation. These
are foundations which are thought necessary almost everywhere else. If you
wish to add or detract from any line item, go ahead - otherwise, I don't
understand what you interest is.

Historically, anytime anyone tries to fix what the organization is doing
that is "wrong" has often led to worse problems.

Has sometimes. Not always - some reformers actually achieve things, by force
of their personality combined with a little science. The best reforms are
actually conducted by groups, not unlike the Founders who all acted together
in this country to propose a remedy for people that could not come about in
Europe.

The problem is there is no context in which to measure direction and
purpose.

Yes! And so I propose one - within the overall spirit of USCF's own mission!
Nothing radical about that - but rather than agreeing with good ideas,
mature minds say how they will bring those ideas about - therefore they
create criteria and standard as measures, usually incremental ones, and the
process is called institution building.

At least none that is agreed upon or that can be pointed to as the mantra
and measuring stick of the organization. Without such a thing if it works
you're just lucky. In a chess-like terms it is akin to what Mr. Heisman
refers to as "hope chess". We do things because we hope they are the
right thing to do.

I did actually talk with Dan H a few days ago. I talk with a lot of people
in chess

On top of it all, there is proven malevolence in the organization. Which
means not only do we have well meaning smart people floundering, we have
had people taking advantage of that as well.

I agree.

This organization is broken at its core. You can read somewhere earlier
in the thread, where I think it can look to for guidance.

I also agree that the issue of Transparency could be added to that list of
items. The way to implement it is to suggest the method by which it can come
about. It is not sufficient, eg, to speak of all things [and Rob Mitchell
has pointed out that a board member seems to have even broken the law in
revealing medical details of an employee].

Secondly, I would say that what is made transparent should be the process of
government itself - yet recent 'transparency' has revealed nothing of any
process and instead consists of massive quantities of opinion, always with
someone to blame, and by someone who himself does not wish to be examined.

In short, some sobriety is called for, rather than McCarthyesque witch-hunts
intended to alarm people with an end result that less trust is engendered,
rather than more.


If you want to make you own specific proposals why don't you start your
own thread and represent the power of your own insights? Otherwise seek
the bitch within!

I am not even sure what you are saying here. Look, I am a member of this
organization, I wasn't for years. I personally feel that without
transparency that continuing to just hope things go ok, is wishful
thinking, and historically foolish.

You think I am arguing against such transparency? I am adding to it - but
shouting your mouth off on usenet in good old Sloan-style as if you, and you
alone, were the Lone Ranger, means that we Tontos out here are laughing up
our Teepees. To implement your idea you might need to outline not only what
should, in your opinion, be freely spoken, but also how it should be
responsibly spoken.

If /I/ wanted to change the organization, I would change it at the core
and work outwards, because symptomatically, it appears to barely function
by nearly every measure. The fact that it functions at all, is not a
tribute to its people, but to the validity of its reason to exist, and the
desire by the public, the players, and the world organization for it to
exist. There is fundamentally no reason, other than poor organizational
energy/chi (whatever) that the organization should be running so poorly.

We are in no dissagreement on this! I would even say that from this crew of
chess contacts all over the shop, that we are in no disagreement with them
either. Especially from within the shop. Probably the biggest advocates for
change are already partnering or employed in some means at USCF. But it is
troublesome for them to speak.

One other aspect of transparency is that when I talked with Bill Hall he
really liked the idea of a Meet the Press session every couple of months -
with senior US Staff and the board too. This is /designed/ to be a
Transparency session. I note that candiate-Bauer endorses this idea [though
can't remember if he said so in interview, or as a side note e-mail.

I have read that others very fundamentally agree with this view and are
just marking time for the organization to fail so that it can be reborn,
as that is the only possible path. Personally, I think that people can
change it even now if they wanted to.

As someone who is currently outside the physical realm of the organization
(Washington state) I focus real activity helping out around here, deeply
wishing that the USCF was run better, and that maybe my rating would be
more accurate, that I would have more opportunities to play and interact
with the organization, for me and my family.

I have gone out of my way to participate within the USCF only to find that
the organization will not even recognize the far west scholastically.

So, that is where I stand.

And I will continue to Bitch about those that whine, especially against
those that should and could know and do better. That I bother to
shouldn't be taken poorly, but hopefully as a challenge.

JT

Look JT - there is only ONE result forthcoming in this election. And if USCF
can't adapt to what's new and necessary, then it will gain competition from
some very active and positive people who intend to rock&roll the chess
scene. Its not whining to propose this, its simply deathly to do nothing.

Cordially, Phil Innes

On Jun 25, 8:34 am, "Chess One" wrote:

shouting your mouth off on usenet in good old Sloan-style as if you, and you
alone, were the Lone Ranger...

I stopped posting here a while ago, but I thought I'd come back for a
visit. The Nearly an IM 2450 still has no sense of irony, I see.

On Jun 24, 1:36 pm, JohnnyT wrote:

This is not an agenda, it is a bitch list in the form of an agenda.
This is *not* to say that items on this list are not worth doing, nor
that the bitches aren't worthwhile, but it is a very specific bitch list.

You are then attempting to convert the bitch list into an argument in a
false dichotomy and ad hominem attacks.

This is a poor form of complaint and politics. It solves nothing, and
presents your arguments poorly. I would expect this from an unqualified
candidate, but I would expect better from an intelligent observer as
yourself.

I hope you are being sarcastic, Johnny T. A simple search of this
newsgroup will provide examples of the 'intelligence' of Mr. Innes.
You may wish to start with his discussion of the Andean language, or
his vaporware "nearly an IM 2450" chess title.

On Jun 25, 11:01 am, The Historian wrote:
On Jun 25, 8:34 am, "Chess One" wrote:

shouting your mouth off on usenet in good old Sloan-style as if you, and you
alone, were the Lone Ranger...

I stopped posting here a while ago, but I thought I'd come back for a
visit. The Nearly an IM 2450 still has no sense of irony, I see.

Goodness. "The Historian" is back and Stan Vaughan too! I thought we
had finally gotten rid of both of them.

Please don't stay too long.

Sam Sloan

On Jun 25, 1:00 pm, samsloan wrote:
On Jun 25, 11:01 am, The Historian wrote:

On Jun 25, 8:34 am, "Chess One" wrote:

shouting your mouth off on usenet in good old Sloan-style as if you, and you
alone, were the Lone Ranger...

I stopped posting here a while ago, but I thought I'd come back for a
visit. The Nearly an IM 2450 still has no sense of irony, I see.

Goodness. "The Historian" is back and Stan Vaughan too! I thought we
had finally gotten rid of both of them.

Please don't stay too long.

Sam Sloan

Sam,
Actually Neil is better for the USCF than you are.

I defy you to answer to any of your campaign pledges that you have
actually done! Have you done anything except act the hound? You
constantly "sniff" for crap. You whine and bark when you think you
have found crap and want to be patted on the head and be told what a
good dog you are. Truth is you are so much a dog chasing his own tail!
The stence you smell is your own and the circles you make are very
entertaining but not productive for the USCF.