Re: [messengers] Minutes from the Open Forum

Date: 22 Aug 2013 04:28:24 +0200
From: Andy Zalan <zalandy@xxxxxxxxx>


it technically is: 2 years out - proposal, 1 year out - final bid. except
that the host city is for all intents and purposes selected 2 years out,
after only the initial proposal. only 1 city is selected initially, with
the idea being that the next year said city will show up with whatever
progress they have made and if it is deemed they have not met some
undefined, minimum expectation, there would be a vote of no confidence and
no cmwc that year. but of course that will never happen. nobody will choose
no cmwc when there is a city bidding to host, no matter how unorganized
they seem or how little they have to present at the open forum. what we
need to do is to select the best 2 or 3 proposals from the initial bids 2
years in advance, let them work on their bids for a year, come back,
present again, showing all the progress they have made, and then a final
vote between those 2 cities is made in 1 year in advance. am i making sense?

as for the idea of making the host city selection rules "modifiable on the
fly", i am not sure what that even means. as far as i know, any and all
rules can be amended at a cmwc if it is agreed upon at the open forum. this
however creates the dilemma that makes the board of the ifbma basically
useless, because they can't make any changes or do anything without
approval from the open forum. really, the ifbma board needs to be granted
certain powers and authority that go beyond just the open forums. it also
needs a budget and a strictly defined mission.

and also, maybe we should consider a name change. the international
federation of bicycle messenger associations? really? how many bma's are
there anymore? the way i see it, this is really about messenger
championships not messenger associations. it would be great to hold
conferences and discuss worker issues and the like, but there is barely
time to hold the 2 open forums as it is. if we were to try to tackle these
types of issues, it would have to be at a time other than at the cmwc.

we haven't used consensus in a long time. it is a straight vote, majority
wins.

--
az


On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Joel Metz <magpie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> which is how i thought it was supposed to happen. 2 years proposal, 1 year
> final bid.
>
> im not really enthused about the idea of making the cmwc host city
> selection rules modifiable on the fly. a little bit too pat mcquaid for me
> :)
>
> but hey, i havent been able to get to cmwc since 2005, so my voice in this
> is limited :)
>
> -joel
>
> > I don't see the point in not giving it to the bidding city 2 years out.
> > How
> > little "evidence" would a city need to show for there really be a vote of
> > no confidence? Never gonna happen.
> >
> > I've proposed it before, I think bids should be heard and accepted 2
> years
> > out, narrowed down to a field of 2, maybe 3 eligible cities, who then
> > present again 1 year out for final vote. That gives cities 1 year to
> > really
> > put something on paper, promotes competitiveness, and then gives the
> > winning city that 2nd year to really iron out the details and do the
> heavy
> > lifting. But hey, what do I know?
> > See you in Mexico! That is if they still got the bid. Lemme check the
> rule
> > book...
> > --
> > AZ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > pssst... come to my race on saturday. it is a fun(d)racer. you can even
> > play along from home.
> > https://www.facebook.com/events/566546996728829/
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, <sunaltahusky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> One day we will all send our drones.
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >> On 2013-08-21, at 3:53 PM, Shawn bega Blumenfeld <shawnbega@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > yeah joel where you been? the process has morphed some since 2005, the
> >> > date on those webpages.
> >> >
> >> > while its mostly as written, the current process that has been
> >> > followed recently: cities bid 2 years out and one city is chosen at
> >> > the 2 year out open forum. that city must then present a final bid for
> >> > confirmation one year out. if they dont seem capable and are refused
> >> > by the one year out forum, an emergency situation would then have to
> >> > be discussed. i didnt see it in these minutes, it may have happened at
> >> > the first open forum or may have gotten skipped, but i know at least
> >> > that mexico was prepared to give a final presentation for 2014.
> >> >
> >> > i reiterate my recommendation from last year: i believe a motion
> >> > should be made next time to eliminate proxy votes. they dont matter,
> >> > and are contrary to a consensus process.
> >> >
> >> > i reiterate my desire to see at least those specific pages at
> >> > messengers.org updated to reflect the current process.
> >> >
> >> > mexico mexico mexico. cant fricken wait. im running "velodrome day" at
> >> > which ive been told we'll be allowed to race the track with non track
> >> > bikes. long live the derailleur!
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Shawn "bega" Blumenfeld
> >> > http://www.dcbikeracing.com
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Blaize Felberbaum
> >> > <blaize.felberbaum@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> Lausanne Open Forum took a decision as described on the IFBMA status
> >> (
> >> http://messengers.org/?page_id=126). Melbourne will have to meet the
> >> requirements for the final bid in CMWC Mexico in 2014 (
> >> http://messengers.org/?page_id=124).
> >> >>
> >> >> But that up to next year Open Forum to decide.
> >> >>
> >> >> Blaize.
> >> >>
> >> >> Le 21 août 2013 à 15:20, Joel Metz a écrit :
> >> >>
> >> >>> final vote for cmwc 2 years in advance? i guess procedures have
> >> changed...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -joel
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> 4. CMWC 2015
> >> >>>> Reps of Melbourne and Paris present the final argumentation for the
> >> vote
> >> >>>> of CMWC 2015
> >> >>>> Proxy vote shows that both city collected the exact same votes
> >> (Under
> >> the
> >> >>>> control of a member of the council. We swiss don't joke about
> >> democracy!).
> >> >>>> Messenger  at the open forum choose a city in between the 2 in the
> >> race
> >> >>>> for 2015 (non-messengers are asked to step aside the vote). A short
> >> >>>> majority chooses Melbourne.
> >> >>>> After a few more arguments, reps from Paris choose to withdraw from
> >> CMWC
> >> >>>> 2015 bid.
> >> >>>> Therefore a consensus is reached and MELBOURNE IS OFFICIALLY VOTED
> >> HOST
> >> >>>> CITY FOR CMWC 2015.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> joel metz : magpie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx : http://www.blackbirdsf.org/
> >> >>> magpie messenger collective   :    http://magpiemessenger.com/
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> 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
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Messengers mailing list
> > Messengers@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://ifbma.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/messengers
> >
>
>
> --
> joel metz : magpie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx : http://www.blackbirdsf.org/
> magpie messenger collective   :    http://magpiemessenger.com/
>
>
>