Re: [messengers] open forum 2012

Date: 10 Aug 2012 18:38:29 +0200
From: Joaquin Sanchez <joschz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

wow! thanks Bega for that.
And thank you fellow messengers for supporting our bid. We are already working hard and 100% commited to make Mexico's the best ever CMWC. 
See you guys in Lausanne (and Paris!) next summer.


On Aug 10, 2012, at 10:41, Shawn bega Blumenfeld <shawnbega@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> at the bequest of the council, auggie moderated the 1st open forum.
> an announcement of the bmef raffle was made.
> a presentation was made by lausanne for cmwc 2013. a motion was made
> to accept their final bid by consensus. a consensus was taken, and
> lausanne was approved for 2013.
> proposals for cmwc 2014 were made by mexico city, new york city, and melbourne.
> mexico city bid:
> joaquin, head bidder, was absent from cmwc due to issues crossing the
> border. the bid was presented by safa and lane from australia, along
> with nadir and bega. highlights included that the mexico city was
> indeed a messenger bid, with joaquin of bicimensajeros as the leader
> of a growing messenger community. joaquin has been to several cmc's
> and had bid a couple of times for the continentals, and was ready to
> host the worlds. a forested park area on the edge of town was noted as
> a place where a closed course could be easily attained. downtown was
> also a possibility. the expansion of our community to latin america
> was emphasized. the necessity of the bicycle in latin america was also
> emphasized. the cheapness of mexico (once you get there) was noted.
> 100 cases of tequila were promised.
> new york city:
> a large contingent of new york city messengers stood forth. leaders
> were crhis, austin, and victor. 3 solid potential closed courses
> within new york city were discussed, focused on the navy yard in
> brooklyn. concepts of nyc as a central world hub that everyone could
> get to, could (re)increase our participation numbers, and would be an
> excellent public display of our community and our race, were noted.
> nyc emphasized their long term commitment to the community and their
> vast numbers of nyc messengers as support. they also emphasized their
> experience with countless large events and their participation in
> cmc's.  they noted 2 options for cheap /free housing: a camping space
> and a warehouse space. and they noted several massively big party
> spaces. the stressed their large, tight community.
> melbourne:
> allen? stood forth. said this was their first thoughts of a bid.
> melbourne has hosted acmc, but was just starting to get organized in
> regards to cmwc. the race hadnt been to australia since 2006, and its
> important that we move it around.
> bids for 2014 were closed.
> a proposal was made to change the cmwc voting system from the
> consensus system to a ballot voting system. after a presentation of
> the proposal, a motion was made to accept or reject via a consensus
> vote. a consensus to change the voting process was not evident, a non
> consensus was declared, and the proposal was tabled.
> a reminder to turn in "proxy votes" for the cmwc bids at 2nd open
> forum was made. (bega says "see why proxies are irrelevant in a
> consensus system down below")
> the first open forum was closed.
> -----
> at the bequest of the council, bega moderated the 2nd open forum.
> several upcoming events were announced by their organizers: alleycats,
> parties, etc. perhaps of note, you could alleycat almost from here to
> lasaunne every weekend without stopping. keep partying! keep messenger
> racing!
> the open forum consensus process was described by the moderator (at
> least the best he understands it):
> we would hear from each bidding city, followed by questions for that city.
> after hearing from each city and direct individual questions, we would
> then open for questions for all cities again.
> we would then (after the appropriate motion and 2nd) would take a body
> vote to see if we had a consensus, noting the addition of the proxy
> voters. if a clear consensus did not exist, we would open for direct
> personal discussion allowing bidders to talk with individuals (that
> is: try to sway them to come over to their side). after another
> motion, a new body count could be taken to see if we had a consensus,
> and so forth until the numbers were so overwhelming one way that a
> consensus could be declared.
> following the bid process, the floor would be opened for other motions
> and business including deciding the next council.
> final bids were presented by 1st by mexico city then by new york city.
> melbourne withdrew its bid, promising to bid again in the future.
> noted on the bids: both cities were asked several questions directly
> and came up with (what bega thinks were) similar answers:
> on closed courses: both cities re-emphasized that they have good
> potential course options, and the races would be on closed courses.
> on sponsorship: both groups of organizers legitimately emphasized long
> term relationships with several excellent sponsors.
> on housing: both cities noted cheap housing: mexico city noting that
> everything was cheap once you got there, new york emphasizing the
> ability to attain group housing space.
> on parties: this was an excellent case of oneupmansship. mexico city
> stressed its legendary debauchery, while new york reminded us that it
> never sleeps. new york added 1000 cases of beer to its bid.
> after open questions, a motion was made to see if we had a consensus.
> while messengers moved left or right to represent their vote for
> mexico or new york, proxies were counted. written proxies were turned
> in by the chicago organizers, new york bidders, and mexico city
> bidders. the proxy tally was 28 for mexico, 27 for nyc, 2 for
> melbourne. the coincidence that these were so close is not why they
> are irrelevant.
> ahh, the wonder of the consensus system. this is when it gets fun.
> mark your clock now, as how long the process takes from here is the
> true variable. ive seen it take hours.
> -the body vote was maybe approximately 75 to 25, or maybe 100 to 50
> including proxies, in favor of mexico city. an exact count was not
> made at this point
> -the moderator was asked to declare a consensus (it was not motioned
> for at this point). the moderator stated that he didnt think one
> existed: that enough bodies were on the dissenting side to present a
> legitimate block, and that further discussion was needed.
> - bidders began to discuss their proposals with individuals attempting
> to sway them over to their side.
> - a motion for a declaration of consensus was made. a 2nd was taken,
> and everyone froze in place for a moment. a new york bidder quietly
> said to the moderator, this isnt a consensus. the moderator agreed and
> declared a non consensus.
> - an actual count was motioned for and 2nd'ed. the count was 78 to 28,
> not including proxies. this is of course, a non binding count but gave
> us an idea of where we were. here is where proxies become necessarily
> irrelevant.
> [ we a trying for a 100% consensus. a proxy can be delivered in 1 of 2
> forms: one is "i vote for city X" . this becomes irrelevant, because
> its vote only counts on the first ballot. it is expected and necessary
> that people will be swayed one way or the other, and as we constantly
> ask for new votes to be taken, these proxies arent present to recast
> their new vote nor are they here to present a block as the process
> comes to a conclusion. thus they only count if the proxies help create
> an overwhelming first vote, which they almost never do.
> the other proxy is "i vote the way Jim votes". this becomes
> irrelevant, for as we reach 100%, all votes with jim will be part of
> that 100%, and since 100% is everybody, the actual number doesnt need
> to be counted. someone please make a motion at the next cmwc open
> forum to eliminate the irrelevant proxy at least as long as we retain
> this system. i guess it does give non showers a feeling of inclusion.
> ]
> - individual discussion continued.
> - a question was asked if we could accept the vote "just this one
> time". the moderator explained that a motion could be made to do so,
> it would need to be 2nded and then a consensus taken to pass. the
> moderator suggested that a consensus would probably not exist as the
> vote would likely be on similar lines to the current body count.
> (ironically, it was a new york bidder who had made this proposal on
> friday and the proposal had been shot down. i guess it would put him
> in an interesting political quandary had the motion been made at this
> time. however, the motion was not made.)
> - the legitimacy of certain voters were questioned and the voters
> accepted or asked to move aside. several non voters were asked to step
> further away from the group so they did not seem to artificially swell
> the vote.
> - discussion continued
> - the numbers for mexico city grew.
> - a new york messenger stated to the moderator that they could not
> sway enough people and offered concession. however, it wasnt one of
> the bidders. the moderator explained that a bidder would have to make
> a concession. the moderator attempted not to suggest or request that
> new york do so, but rather allowed discussion to continue.
> - the moderator was again asked to declare a consensus. the moderator
> asked for patience.
> - the numbers for mexico city grew.
> - a new york bidder graciously conceded, leaving mexico city the only
> bidder. a consensus was motioned for, 2nded. any blockers were asked
> for, none presented. mexico city was declared, with 100% consensus as
> the accepted bid for 2014. they must now present again in lasaunne for
> a final acceptance. hey mexico city: this means we are all fully 100%
> behind you and we expect 100% success.
> a motion was made for lunch, as the pizza had magically just arrived.
> 20 minutes had passed since the initial body count.
> we ate lunch. the forum was reopened for new business.
> the 2011/2012 council was asked to step forward and announce their
> intention or lack there of to continue. present council members anselm
> and austin stepped forth. Anselm said he was honored to have been on
> the council but did not think he could bring it its just due at this
> time and would not be continuing. austin also declined to continue.
> Nico Deportago-Cabrera of chicago declared he would like to continue
> and his self nomination was 2nded. though absent at this time of the
> forum, (he had to go do a messenger run) he stated through a proxy
> that he wanted to create a process for what to do with excess cmwc
> money on years when it existed. that he wanted to better define the
> role and expectations of the council. that he wanted to update the
> information on the website. (
> biker bill of edmonton was re nominated in abstention and 2nded, in
> the hopes that his long term commitment to the community would not
> waiver if asked to serve again. his ability to manage and moderate on
> the council's behalf with some specific hard to handle issues
> following last years cmwc were noted.
> jeff was nominated and 2nded and gave a speech about the importance of
> our community.
> a motion was made to accept all 3 of these people together (nico,
> bill, jeff) as the 2012/2013 council, and a 2nd was taken. any blocks
> were asked for either for individuals or as a whole. none were
> presented, a consensus was declared for the new council.
> hey new council: that means we are 100% behind you and expect 100%
> effort! get to it!
> further business was asked for. none was presented. a motion was made
> to close the forum and party, 2nded, and without objection, we resumed
> the party and closed the forum.
> ---
> items that i personally noticed discussed throughout the weekend:
> -the necessity of archiving. (you know - all those old websites and
> alleycat flyers and stories and organizational information and union
> drives and the independent company movement and tax cases and epic
> party photos).
> -the desire to see ifbma information properly updated (
> specifically with the current bid process, current council, links to
> current championships and current email lists)
> -positive roles in our community for ex and non messengers, sponsors
> and friends and families and other supporters (no one that i could
> find had any positive role for hipsters or fakeners with no real
> connection to our community). this wasnt about the race participants,
> but more seriously about our leaders and our community. the necessity
> for current messengers to define the parameters of our community and
> the direction in which it moves forward seemed prevalent. it seemed at
> least to me, ex messengers and non messengers were also readily
> accepted as continually important in our expanded community. most i
> spoke to agreed however, that the current messengers must be the
> driving force.
> -the voting system: ballots vs consensus.
> - the incredible messenger racing accomplishments of bega, and despite
> his age, his ability to place 71st in the main race (8th time in the
> finals) and 5th in the cargo race.
> -proxy votes and their necessity or irrelevancy.
> - the growing acceptance of foodengers in our community.
> - what is specifically expected from a host city? a race? side events?
> a certain kind of party? an art show? a meal? housing? at least some
> messengers seemed to desire a better definition, though maybe just a
> loose document, as to what are the minimal expectations for success of
> a cmwc.
> - the now greatly expanding "list of mistakes and failures" of cmc's
> over the years. (without ego of course: we must pass on the details of
> our specific mistakes less we repeat them.)
> please excuse, or at least feel free to point out, items in this
> treatise that may seem to be tempered towards my personal opinions, or
> may be inaccurate in your eyes. i certainly attempted to present an
> actual telling of the forums and related issues. i was of course
> honored to be asked by the council to moderate the 2nd forum and to be
> accepted by my fellow community in this role, which i hope i
> successfully performed in a fair and accurate manor. i felt this
> re-telling was a necessary extension of that request.
> --
> Shawn "bega" Blumenfeld
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Messengers mailing list
> Messengers@xxxxxxxxx