Date: 7 Aug 2011 21:51:43 +0200
> the bid process should also be looked at, the 2 years is ok, but i think > that all bidding cities should have the first year to come up with the > final All of thoses requests you're talking about are already inforced by the IFBMA. If you look at messengers.org you can find what it takes to bid. Not only giving away free beers but for exemple; a comitee, letter of support from your city, 100$ etc.. You can find all of this (not the 100$) at www.cmwc13.com What we could do is play by the rules and not let anyone bid if they dont meet the requests, but I find the process pretty clear and pretty demanding already. And I dont think one year is enough to organised a CMWC. Not if you need to find from $ 50k to 100k to make it work.. blaize. > bid, in this way we still able to give the last minute ideas a chance, but > we dont vote for something that doesnt have a bid on paper and just > promising free beer. i this way its also possible to not be present two > years before, just notifications will do and we give everyone the same > chance to come up with a great bid a year before. better chances better > bids. > so the actual voting is one year ahead, not two years. > there should be 3 voting processes. open forum 50% online 25% and voters > should have been on at least the last years cmwc registration list or any > other cmwc registration list. > and the last 25% vote (or a veto) is an extra controlling vote from all > council members. (so there is the problem just getting the job or being > voted for) but this vote is just to make sure that at least some people > have > been reading the bids. > > also the bids should be online to read a month before the cmwc. its > importtant so any group has the same chance. and ofcourse 1 year before > there should be one representative at the open forum underbuilding their > bid. i just want to try to rule out 'friendly votes', because the best bid > should win, even when there is only one unknow representative.