Re: [messengers] CMWC OPEN FORUM AGENDA

Date: 28 Apr 2014 18:58:21 -0000
From: london courier emergency fund <londoncourieremergencyfund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


According to the IFBMA website, the selection of the host city is a 2 stage
process over 2 years where all potential bidding cities bring in their
proposal the 1st year and then come back one year later with their progress
and then the winning city is selected..am i understanding this right?

I have only been to 3 CMWCs and followed the others from the distance. The
process has been that several cities show up with their bid, one of those
cities gets the bid, goes away and get on with it. That city comes back a
year later, shows everyone how they're doing and we're all looking forward
to go there. In the meantime, another bunch of cities come up with their
bid and the process starts again.

I quite like it that way. If people are coming halfway thru the planet to
present a bid, i can imagine they are serious about organising CMWC in
their city. They might not have everything sorted but should be confident
that they have the right people and facilities to do so.

Are we expecting Melbourne, who got the bid last year, to hold the CMWC in
2015 or are they still in competition with Paris? Is Paris still in the
game or are they gonna put a bid for 2016? are we following the IFBMA
procedure?

Now, i agree with Andy regarding the 2nd forum and get the bidding cities
on stage again before voting.
Not sure how practical it would be to have someone manning the ballot box
for the whole of the event.

Materials regarding every bid should definitely be made available online
before CMWC, linked to the present CMWC city website, mess list etc and
possibly in every registration pack so participants who mised the open
forum still have the info (bidding cities should provide the material to
the CMWC organisers so they don't have to worry about the extra printing
work). Most bidding cities put a lot of efforts in their presentation so
they deserve to have as many participants as possible to decide on this.

Andy, are you saying that while participants take a vote on the host city
selection, they will also vote for any issues that have been brought up
during the open forum? will there be another ballot slip?

Stephanie



On 28 April 2014 18:24, matteo castronuovo <m.castronuovo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It would be interesting if we allowed the cities that wish to apply for the
> CMWC to send via email 1 month before the start of their event a detailed
> presentation of the event, enablaling those who wish to read the
> presentation the possibility to download it.
>
> It would also be useful to assign a point system to the presentations, thus
> facilitating those who vote.
>
> Obviously these presentations will be used during the open forum.
>
>
> 2014-04-28 16:09 GMT+02:00 Andy Zalan <zalandy@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > My idea:
> >
> > Keep the initial Open Forum, but forget the 2nd one altogether.
> >
> > Instead, at the start of the Awards Ceremony, all bidding cities get up
> and
> > make one last, brief presentation to win over undecided voters. All
> > registered participants get a numbered ballot slip (same as their race
> > number) in their registration packet. A ballot box is made available
> > beginning at the end of the initial Open Forum until the end of the
> Awards
> > Ceremony - people have until then to cast their vote. Or more
> specifically,
> > make it say, 15 minutes after the final presentations, so that the votes
> > can be tallied and announced by the end of the Awards Ceremony (votes may
> > be tallied as they are cast during the weekend, so that it doesn't all
> have
> > to get counted at the Awards Ceremony). No proxy votes, just one
> available
> > vote per attendee that they have to personally submit.
> >
> > To take that idea even further, the ballots could be accompanied with the
> > Open Forum agenda items which need to be decided on. This addendum could
> be
> > created at or after the Open Forum and distributed later that evening
> > and/or during the course of the rest of the event. Again - only one
> ballot
> > per racer. So often the Open Forums get bogged down in heated debate. If
> we
> > eliminated the need to come up with "the answers" - voting on the issues,
> > voting on if we should vote, etc. - the Open Forums would just be about
> > raising the questions and concerns, and offering possible solutions.
> > Perhaps this would make the Open Forum run smoother and more efficiently,
> > and we could be more satisfied we gave all attendees a fair and equal
> > chance to exercise their opinions.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure we abandoned the consensus method soon after Buffalo Bill
> > stopped attending, but I don't know if the by-laws were ever amended to
> > reflect this. It's been a straight majority rules vote for many years
> now.
> >
> > I am also pretty sure that the by-laws were amended to allow for the
> IFBMA
> > council to take decisions amongst themselves on certain matters during
> the
> > year, outside of an actual CMWC. If not, there must be a provision for
> > this, in the case that some timely issue comes up that needs to be
> > addressed before the next Championships.
> >
> > I have some other ideas but that's all for now.
> >
> > AZ
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Shawn bega Blumenfeld
> > <shawnbega@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> >
> > > on several occasions, the 2nd open forum has been scheduled for sunday
> > > but on at least some of those occasions hasnt successfully happened
> > > for various reasons such as lack of organization or lack of interest
> > > or people being already drunk or the finals ran late and the forum was
> > > scheduled for a time when the bunny hop was still going on and thats
> > > not really fair. and thus the forum has been suddenly moved to some
> > > other unplanned time and location. it is my belief that if it is
> > > scheduled for sunday, it should happen for real on sunday.
> > >
> > > its not really supposed to be a "vote". its supposed to be a consensus
> > > (which is not the same thing as a unanimous decision - consensus means
> > > that no one wishes to block the decision which means everyone accepts
> > > the "vote" not necessarily agrees with it - it rarely happens after
> > > only one vote). at least as recently as chicago, a motion was made to
> > > change it from consensus to a straight vote but that proposal was
> > > tabled and has been tabled at at least 3 open forums that i remember.
> > > i would suggest that it has gained more headway recently, and at least
> > > a couple of times, the vote has been taken this way as a single vote,
> > > not necessarily for the worse at those forums. truthfully if at least
> > > most people walk away thinking it was at least somewhat fair, youve
> > > done at least somewhat of a good job.
> > >
> > > proxies should be eliminated. whenever you have the forum, people who
> > > want to participate should show up. at different forums, proxies have
> > > been treated differently with little if any consistency.  proxies dont
> > > function in a consensus format. they barely work in a voting format.
> > > they cause controversy and breed uninformed and uncaring voters.
> > >
> > >
> > > im really excited to see people having these sorts of conversations.
> > > ive always personally believed that having the conversation is more
> > > important than the final decisions.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Shawn "bega" Blumenfeld
> > > http://www.dcbikeracing.com
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 2:11 PM, london courier emergency fund
> > > <londoncourieremergencyfund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > PROPOSAL FOR A CHANGE TO THE VOTING SYSTEM OF CMWCs
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have spoken to quite a few people who feel the system is not as
> good
> > as
> > > > it could be.
> > > >
> > > > From what i know, the issue has been brought up before and
> apparently,
> > > > nothing has been done about it because no one was bothered to do
> > > something
> > > > about it but i could be wrong and there could be other reasons.
> > > >
> > > > Having the 1st open forum at the beginning of the event is
> fine..people
> > > > just arrive, they are fresh and ready to listen..so once the agenda
> has
> > > > been brought up and discussed, get the bidding cities to do their
> > > > thing..bidding cities should have some materials that people can look
> > at
> > > > through the event so whoever wasn't at the 1st open forum can catch
> up
> > > and
> > > > people can look through the materials over the weekend.
> > > >
> > > > The 2nd forum should ideally be on Sunday. On Monday,most people are
> > > either
> > > > gone or too fucked to attend so it doesn't make sense to vote then.
> > > >
> > > > It could be argued that people who are serious about voting should
> > > arrange
> > > > their trip to stay until then but the reality is that people
> > don't/can't
> > > > stay on Monday (especially if the CMWC is in Europe, countries are
> > > closer,
> > > > people head back Sunday night/Monday morning) so we should
> accommodate
> > > that
> > > > and have the second open forum on Sunday...
> > > >
> > > > The time when the main race finals are done and before the prize
> > giving,
> > > > when people are chilling and before the big party, would be ideal to
> > get
> > > > the bidding cities on stage again and remind people it's time to vote
> > and
> > > > give them a deadline to do so.
> > > >
> > > > Depending on logistics, there could be a couple of volunteers
> manning a
> > > > ballot box for a few hours at the end of the day so participants have
> > > > plenty of time to vote. Make it simple, give your rider's
> name/number,
> > > one
> > > > ballot paper, write the city you're voting for and cast your vote.
> > > >
> > > > We need to make sure this is done thoroughly so have a list of all
> > > > registered participants and once they have voted, cross their names.
> > > >
> > > > During the prize giving, someone would be counting the votes..IFBMA
> > > council
> > > > members maybe, as organisers will be fairly busy and the winning city
> > > would
> > > > be announced once the prize giving is over and before the party
> start.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > People would be told in advance (ie on the website of the next CMWC
> > > > organiser if this proposal goes through) that the voting system has
> > > changed
> > > > and what it involves.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Any suggestions on this are appreciated.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Stephanie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> /////////////////////////////////////////////
> Matteo Castronuovo
> Marketing e Comunicazione
>
> m.castronuovo@xxxxxxxxxx
> ph. +39 3426853559
> /////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> 0245558500
>
> Urban Bike Messengers srl
> c/o Avanzi, via ampère 61/A
> 20131 Milano
> P.I.e C.F. 06891640960
>  Consegniamo una Milano più pulita.
>
> [image: Linkedin]
> <http://www.linkedin.com/companies/996690><
> http://www.linkedin.com/companies/996690>[image:
> Facebook]<
> http://www.facebook.com/#%21/pages/Milano-Italy/Urban-Bike-Messengers-Milano/72191458984?ref=ts
> ><
> http://www.facebook.com/#%21/pages/Milano-Italy/Urban-Bike-Messengers-Milano/72191458984?ref=ts
> >[image:
> Flickr] <http://www.flickr.com/photos/ubm/><
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ubm/>[image:
> Twitter] <http://twitter.com/urbanbm> <http://twitter.com/urbanbm>[image:
> Youtube] <http://www.youtube.com/user/urbanbikemessenger>
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.linkedin.com/companies/996690>
> _______________________________________________
> Messengers mailing list
> Messengers@xxxxxxxxx
> http://ifbma.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/messengers
>