Re: [messengers] cmwc 2012 bid

Date: 15 Sep 2010 21:52:51 +0200
From: C Q <fixieman@xxxxxxxxx>


We┬┤ll talk about this whne I get home

but I{ still busy in Pana
shit got to go get this race started...

Chi City 2012

see you there or else!

Chuck     Q

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Christina Peck
<christinakpeck@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> well that is what came to question--IFBMA bylaws (as i understand, which
> may
> not be entirely accurate) as of now, necessitate the bidding city to be
> confirmed by open forum at CMWCs the year prior.
> warsaw had little more to present this year than they did with their
> opening
> bid the year prior in tokyo. a suggestion at the meeting in pana (which was
> not agreed upon) was that the bidding city should need to be presenting a
> more developed bid (possibly with set guidelines?), that voting two years
> out on a city does little good if that city makes no progress in the first
> year. and possibly that the two year proposal should act more as a primary
> (voting down to two cities and then having both of them come in with bids a
> year out?) so that the IFMBA/open forum was not stuck with a city simply
> because there are no other options at that point.
> since there was no decision at the open forum that this was how it will now
> operate, it seems that unless chicago shows up with no progress, CMWC will
> indeed be in chicago. 20th anniversary and end of the world, oh man.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Julio Saravia <saravia.julio@xxxxxxxxx
> >wrote:
>
> > soooooooooo...if the poland crew would have showed up with not much
> > progress
> > there would have been a revote?  not trying to start anything just
> > wondering
> > how the process works.  believe me...nothing would please me more than to
> > have the worlds come to chicago...peace.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:38 AM, dee shaine <dcfixie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > so the chicago bid has to be voted on again in 2011?
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 9/15/10, Leah <torontocouriergirl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Leah <torontocouriergirl@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: Re: [messengers] cmwc 2012 bid
> > > To: "Julio Saravia" <saravia.julio@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: "messengers@xxxxxxxxx" <messengers@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010, 9:20 AM
> > >
> > > Basically unless Chicago fail miserably at showing that they have made
> > > progress planning cmwc 2012 by next years open forum then they will be
> > > hosting 2012. If it looks like they have done nothing by next year I
> > believe
> > > that we can change our vote in Warsaw. But Chicago has been given the
> go
> > > ahead to say they are hosting and begin their planning in earnest.
> > >
> > > Considering the hype and excitement shown by the chicago crew thus far,
> I
> > > highly doubt that they will disappoint.
> > >
> > > See ya in Chi-town in 2012!!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2010-09-15, at 6:56 AM, Julio Saravia <saravia.julio@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > wait...so Chicago in 2012 is not set in stone? haha! priceless...can
> > > someone tell me if the worlds are coming to my city...thanks!
> > > >
> > > > -julio
> > > >
> > > > On Sep 15, 2010, at 7:12, Team Triplerush <triplerush@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> nyc is bidding for cmwc2012 ,was the Chicago vote for 2012 done 2
> > years
> > > in advance,or is it for 2011
> > > >> our understanding was 2 years lead time,you throw in your draft
> > > propasal,and the final decision is made  at the open forum a year
> before
> > > >> from messengers.org website
> > > >>
> > > >> Initial Proposals (2 year lead time)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> The deadline for submission of draft proposals for
> > > >> CMWC events is at the second open forum at the CMWC two years in
> > advance
> > > >> of the CMWC being bid for. Draft proposals are not full-blown
> > > >> proposals, but should take into account the following Requirements
> > > >> and Suggestions
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> After this deadline, bidding for the CMWC year in
> > > >> question will be closed. Draft proposals should simply be presented
> > > >> at the open forum, and the proposing cities recorded and announced
> for
> > > >> all to note. Proposing cities should do what they can to make
> > > >> information available concerning their intentions to anyone who may
> be
> > > >> interested.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Messengers mailing list
> > > >> Messengers@xxxxxxxxx
> > > >> http://ifbma.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/messengers
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Messengers mailing list
> > > > Messengers@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > http://ifbma.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/messengers
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Messengers mailing list
> > > Messengers@xxxxxxxxx
> > > http://ifbma.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/messengers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Messengers mailing list
> > > Messengers@xxxxxxxxx
> > > http://ifbma.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/messengers
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Julio Saravia
> > _______________________________________________
> > Messengers mailing list
> > Messengers@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://ifbma.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/messengers
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -christina
>  _______________________________________________
> Messengers mailing list
> Messengers@xxxxxxxxx
> http://ifbma.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/messengers
>