|
| I also agree with Tom's basic ideas.
I feel that the USCF's core tasks (as detailed by Tom's post) could be
easily accomplished by a small (as in about 10 people max) staff if true
professionals are hired to perform specific sets of duties.
Areas that can show immediate and dramatic improvement:
1. Ratings and rating calculation
There's no reason why the system can't be automated in such way that
registered tournament directors can be provided with a login and password
combination for a web page where they can upload tournament reports as a
delimited (comma, tab, etc.) text file. Then, the appropiate staff person
can just look at the pending submissions and click a single button to
perform all rating updates along with the logging of every tournament's
details.
This quite simple with today's technology.
BTW, the whole system could be automated to perform the task without the
intervention of USCF staff, but I suggest the extra step to monitor the
system for possible fraud. The immediate benefit is that ratings will be
current and accessible to the membership and tournament directors and
organizers. Another plus side is that tournament directors would be forced
to pay a fee in order for their tournaments to be accepted into the system;
this payment would occur online and the money is quickly available to the
USCF ( a couple of days with most payment gateways, like Authorize.net)
2. Online play
Establish a playing server (a la ICC, Plychess.com) and provide a membership
as part of the basic member benefit package. This is not very expensive, but
if cost is an issue, then arrangements for a discounted membership fee can
be arranged with one of the major services.
3. Chess Life Magazine
Make it into a purely elctronic magazine that goes to members weekly, rather
than monthly. The content gathering can be done without problem if the right
workflow and submission prcess are enforced. This is quite simple and cheap.
The benefits of going purely electronic are many: content will become
relevant once gain; no more reporting on tournaments that happened 6 months
ago. Printing costs will be eliminated; writers will submit their material
online, from their own location. Magazine will be put together
automatically! Members will be given access to a games library from where
they can download study material, game collections, etc.
I know this can be done and is easily done because I have written such
application for one of the largest lawyer associations in the USA. It works
like a charm and everyone loves it.
4. Finances
A large part of the budget should be allocated to hiring a PROFESSIONAL
fund-raising firm in the USA. Yes, hire an outsider that will bring
sponsorship money to the USCF. They know where to go and how to go about it.
That's how most non-profits work.
--
Irvin
-------------------------
http://www.pixel69.com
"Larry Tapper" <larry_tapper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104163433.758891.323390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Petrel>On the other hand, some board members may simply
>
>
> Tom Martinak> Yes, that is basically my view. The USCF should be the
> chess "government" of the US: ratings, TD certification, US
> representative to international chess "government", recognizer of state
> chess "governments", organize championships (in the sense of choosing
> the best bid) and Chess Life (but I view CL as largely a house organ to
> maintain communication with the members containing enough interesting
> material to get the members to pick it up and look at the ads). Other
> aspects of chess development should be handled by independent (possibly
> non-profit) organizers of events and activities which the USCF would
> help by facilitating communication between its members and those
> organizations. Functions beyond these tend to be very succeptible to
> patronage and looting by the politically powerful much like in real
> governement. So, basically you can take this as the libertarian view of
> "USCF". The best government is that which governs least. The main
> necessity is cutting the current high cost of membership.
>
> I agree substantially with Tom Martinak and I wonder how many others
> feel the same. Probably minimalists like us are under-represented in
> rgcp because politicians like to have a lot to be political about.
> Larry T.
>
|
|