Re: [messengers] open forum 2012

Date: 11 Aug 2012 04:55:23 +0200
From: "Yogi @ SYDBMA" <yogi@xxxxxxxxxx>


>>>messengers.org, the desire to see ifbma information properly updated
(messengers.org specifically with the current bid process, current council,
links to current championships and current email lists)
<<<
Many times did we put out the call for information of sites and associations
to update the various BMA websites, none came.

Bill did start to update the Processes and Bid sections.

We also did set up a way to archive flyers and posts for events. And none
came (information).

I am also mid flight of putting up the historical information of events and
publications and reportages.

yogi


-----Original Message-----
From: messengers-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:messengers-bounces@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Shawn bega Blumenfeld
Sent: Saturday, 11 August 2012 1:42 AM
To: messengers
Subject: [messengers] open forum 2012

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. (messengers.org)

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 (messengers.org
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
http://www.dcbikeracing.com
--
_______________________________________________
Messengers mailing list
Messengers@xxxxxxxxx
http://ifbma.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/messengers