This BJC 2016 lot are certainly keen.
Are you happy for the Perth team to go ahead?
#bjc #bjc2016
i am no longer a part of the scene but i am concerned about the way the historic way of deciding where a BJC is to be held is about to dissapear.
the Perth team should get busy with creating a good and solid proposal with as much in place as possible so the vote can take place at a bjc with the full discussion of those who attend the business meeting.
where did the date of October 10th come from? where was the vote taken to decide this date? and under who's authority was it made?
Mini, I don't know you, but all I hear from you are complaints. Complaining about how the voting happens for both the 2014 and 2016 teams. What constructive argument have you got for this not happening as soon as possible? What right do you have as someone who freely admits that they've left the scene? The decision needs to be made for Perth as soon as possible so that the venue can be confirmed (no I don't have the details). Do you honestly have a problem with a team that wants to start early? What is missing from the proposal and why haven't you voiced any concerns on the forum?
If I remember correctly (from the BJC history I've been told), you opposed the creation of any kind of body that would make any kind of authority with regards to the BJC? To quote yourself: Mini, 2014-05-09 22:43 BSTi retired from BJC's 2 yrs ago. But still dont want to see it ever end up being "controlled" there is no need for any governing body.
As such no authoritative body exists, therefore no authority is required! Even so, the BJC2016 went out of it's way to provide a neutral ground for the proposal and a chance for another team to make themselves known. Quoting Ron's post of the forum:If there are no other teams wanting to come forward, can we have a little vote to make sure?
Friday the 10th of October 2014 will be the cut off date, this should give enough time for any others that are interested to speak up. It will also give everyone a chance to vote.
If there is a resounding yes, then the Perth team can move things forward with their bid.
If there are more no votes, without an alternative bid coming forward then I suggest we have another vote at BJC 2015 meeting.
If there is another team that does come forward before the cut off date, then we should give them a week's grace to put their bid forward and have a vote on which place we would prefer.
What more could you reasonably want?
Little Paul - - Parent #
Hi Mini,
You've known me long enough that I hope you can trust me when I say "Don't panic, it'll all be OK. The BJC isn't going to destroy itself"
I'm not at all involved, so hopefully I count as impartial compared to mrawa, ron, jane or anyone else who chips in from either of the next teams.
IMHO, the business meeting approach of organising BJCs has probably just about outlived its usefulness. It worked fine for BJC's of a couple of decades ago, but attendance at the meeting has dropped, it's evolved into a state of play report for the BJC which has just happened, and 1 year isn't enough time to organise a BJC in the modern world.
The expectation of a decision at the business meeting at BJC 2014 is partially what led to there being no 2015 proposals at all presented at the meeting. As a direct result of that we've ended up back in the same venue 2 years running.
The Perth team announced their intentions for 2016 at the 2014 business meeting, and as far as I've heard there aren't even any rumblings of another 2016 team, so I don't see this as an issue.
If we can get into a position where by the time the BJC business meeting rolls round, n+1 is already confirmed, and proposals for n+2 can be presented, and discussed - and then somehow voted on by the wider community at a later date - then well, I think on balance that would probably be healthy.
I expect an online vote will get far wider participation than the 40 or so people who turn up to business meetings. The more people who take part in the decision, the more you seed the idea amongst the wider population that BJC is *their* event - and hopefully the longer it can continue.
Sure it's not how we did it back when only 10% of the people at a BJC had any form of internet access, but that's not the world we're operating in any more. Lets take advantage of the internet! Lets get as many jugglers as possible involved in deciding where we go in 2016!
So sure, it's different. That doesn't make it worse.
Oh, one last thing. You should come to something at some point, we haven't spent an evening in the bar together for ages. It'd be fun!
I'll bring an empty marmite jar.
I too think the business meeting has had its day. It is attended by the hardcore few who will go to the BJC wherever it is, the experienced festival goers who can camp in almost any situation. Unfortunately the BJC depends on all the other people to make up the attendance. Most of which won't vote no, they just won't turn up & we won't know why. Then there is the minority whose idea of participation is to post a complaint in a thread on FB but no suggestion of a solution or offer of help. Unfortunately these people do turn up & inexplicably manage to act surprised that their whim hasn't been catered for.
I don't agree that this vote will get a particularly high participation though for a number of reasons:
I think the set up of the poll can be easily fixed. Everyone has an email address whether they are a facebooker or non facebooker, no one will have to sign up for anything. A little known fact about email is the spec allows you to add text to your email address after a '+' sign. eg. survey+this@ survey+that@ survey+theother@ will all end up in the survey@ mailbox (some email providers don't support this, some providers use a hyphen instead of '+', I know gmail uses '+' at least). After a closing date counting is as easy as doing a search for +this, +that & +theother. Yes people could vote multiple times from different email addresses, but given that most people won't vote once I don't think this is a problem we need worry about!
The email address options can easily be copied & pasted into any & every forum/social network. It is trivial to set up a page with a single field for the user's email address & buttons for each option for people who don't have access to an email client or don't want to sign in to their webmail.
The options available are what they are. People's perception of a proposal & apathy are the tough problems to crack.
Does anyone know how many people participated in &/or what happened to the results of the post 2014 survey?
I know that you can use the "+" option with Gmail, Hotmail/Outlook, and Yahoo.
The reason that this polling system was used was:
We also wanted a place for people to voice any questions/concerns, that was not Facebook (as not everyone is on Facebook + posts get lost). The voting shouldn't really be any different to other voting systems, you need to register to vote. It's no different to being at the BJC where you've registered by buying a ticket.
Regarding the "post 2014 survey", I have a copy of the results, but that question was never asked... but I can quote the Wiki:Initial attendance was 47 with 15 latecomers, giving total attendance of 62 (~7% of BJC attendees)
Ah! That I do know. 365 people took part in the survey, however they had the options of skipping questions. I have a breakdown on answered vs skipped (for all 50 questions) and the further in the more were skipped. On average 76 people skipped each question...
Blimey, that's a lot more than I expected.
A case of good timing & capitalising on people wanting to prolong the BJC experience perhaps?
Soooo, what was the result of the BJC 2016 vote? Are we all going to Perth in 2016 or not? I looked on the website www.britishjugglingconvention.co.uk but there is no mention of the result except on the forum where it says 71 votes were cast but "Results of poll are hidden from guests"
It has now been more than 2 weeks since the 7 day voting period is there an announcement imminent or is it to be kept secret like the results of the post 2014 BJC survey?
& that's the problem with doing things by committee, there's no one to make a decision! I think we've wasted enough time already so I'm going to analyse the results, make a decision & announce my findings this evening. Dictatorships FTW!
Besides, the results of the vote are 71 for, 0 against. I doubt even I could interpret that wrong...
Ron & the team are just doing what they said they would do at the BJC 2014 Business meeting. There were no objections that I can remember.
Lazy Juggler - - Parent #
Hi Mini,
Most of what I want to reply has already been said better by others than I could manage.
The vote online was following on from my presentation at the BJC 2014 meeting. There were no objections there, so we are just completing what we said we would. It was never to replace the historic way of voting. I had expected voting at the BJC meeting to continue, although LP and Orinoco make some very valid points on why it may be better to move online, this though could be discussed at the BJC next year.
At the 2014 meeting our team said we would crack on with getting a good solid proposal from one of the different options, with as much in place as possible. The online forum has been set up so that the vote and full discussion could take place online, whilst still enabling and encouraging others to come forward.
10th of October came from it being a 7 day period for people to vote. Potentially it should be longer, but since it had not been done before there was no procedure and I do remember saying something along the lines of, we encourage other bids to come forward (said at the 2014 BJC meeting). Since then no-one has come forward and it has been 6 months since the BJC so I just wanted to start the ball rolling. I had also assumed this authority had been given by the fellow jugglers that attended the BJC meeting in 2014, when I mentioned a central location or website for the bid.
In all of this process I have tried to be as neutral and fair as possible in the way this was done, speaking and informing everyone at a BJC meeting, through to the online vote. We could possibly have just said we want to run the BJC in 2016 at the meeting in 2014 without having a confirmed venue, but I felt doing this would be unfair to any other potential team that maybe had found something and wanted to bring it to the table.
As no further proposals have been forthcoming we wanted to ensure that people were happy for the bid to go ahead so that we can confirm the booking of the venues amongst other things.
I hope the replies address your concerns.
Ron
Would you have voted if you had to send a blank email to an address rather than register for a new site?
Subscribe to this forum via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post