Re: [messengers] CMWC OPEN FORUM AGENDA

Date: 29 Apr 2014 13:24:18 -0000
From: jboule 75 <jboule75@xxxxxxxxxx>


Hi everybody!
I take the liberty to take part of the discussion, being concern by this actually.
I'm pretty agree with steph, as working one year, on a project will not exist is really frustrating..
So the "2 years" system seems more fair...
Concerning the ballot system, the duration : the championship from the first open forum till the award ceremony is a great idea and can let people who came just for two day to race the time to vote. Just need the list of all registered racers and tick them when they vote.
I think that, more people voting, more legitimate the project is, and if each messengers in each championship vote it can create a fresh enthusiasm.
Of course the biding cities should provide all the ballot and communication around their bid.
unfortunately i will not be able to discuss about that in mexico with you, but i hope the best for our community.

whatever happens, some parisians will come to represent a new bid from Paris.
hope the ballot system can let them bring you to Paris...

chistole!

Jboule

> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 22:38:53 +0100
> From: londoncourieremergencyfund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: zalandy@xxxxxxxxx
> CC: messengers@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [messengers] CMWC OPEN FORUM AGENDA
> 
> So keep the procedure pretty much the same and get 2 cities working all out
> for a whole year (plus the time spent on getting the bid ready beforehand)
> with one of them working for nothing? could be argued that i'ts not for
> nothing as they could bid again but still..whatever permits they ask for,
> racecourse they secure, financial sponsors who are ready to back
> them,enthusiastic crew etc  might not work a year later.
> 
> This system hasn't really been followed for a while and no cities has ever
> been rejected.
> If a hosting city feels they are not up for to the challenge anymore, they
> should let it know before the next open forum if possible so the runner up
> city can get organising again.
> 
> I agreed that cities should have as complete bids as possible at the open
> forum rather than just throw stickers around.
> 
> Stephanie
> 
> 
> 
> On 28 April 2014 20:59, Andy Zalan <zalandy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > there have been instances in the past where bids were printed out and put
> > in people's race packets. that's how it should be if you're really serious.
> > but that is on the bidding cities to get their materials in to the
> > organizers ahead of time. don'tt expect the host city to foot the bill for
> > printing. maybe the ifbma can help, but really a serious bid should be able
> > to make this happen. the more info a city can impress us with, the better
> > that will reflect on their bid!
> >
> > The ballot box can move around. there is always a "HQ" or registration
> > table or someplace on the racecourse where it can be officially supervised
> > and made accessible. doesn't have to be available every minute of every
> > day, but its important so it shouldn't be too hard to manage.
> >
> > yes, i am suggesting participants get to vote on the other issues brought
> > up at open forum as well. like referendum ballots or something. it's just
> > an idea...
> >
> > the 2 year out thing is a little bit wonky as i interpret the current rules
> > - someone correct me if i'm wrong. but as it stands, while melbourne is
> > considered to have won the bid last year, they still need to present
> > something this year and be approved. technically it is possible that that
> > will be rejected. the problem with this, as i see it, is that i can hardly
> > imagine a scenario where the bidding city would be denied their bid after
> > the 1st year. nobody is going to seriously block it unless there is some
> > HUMUNGOUS reason. not to mention the fact that nobody is really prepared to
> > host on a year's notice. so basically melbourne is not technically
> > "official" but really, it is.
> >
> > my proposal (pretty sure it has been discussed, but a decision to stay with
> > old system or change has never been taken, leaving in place the old system
> > by default): cities submit and present initial bid 2 years out. field is
> > narrowed to the 2 cities deemed to have the strongest bids. no other cities
> > are now eligible. these 2 cities come again the next year with their FULL
> > bid and a final decision is taken then, leaving the winning city 1 more
> > year to really make it happen. i think this format will make the bids
> > stronger, motivate cities to get more done in advance. right now cities can
> > bring a rough draft bid to a cmwc, win the vote on a platform of
> > "par-taaaay!", then have nothing to show in terms of any progress the next
> > year, and it makes no difference. shit still gets done and is always
> > awesome because of/despite the lack of advance preparations, but let's face
> > it, if it weren't for last minute, nothing would ever get done. i think
> > motivating cities to do more sooner is a good thing. is this system the
> > best? i don't know, but let's talk about it.
> >
> > az
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:58 PM, london courier emergency fund <
> > londoncourieremergencyfund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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