From synchro!judge-request at uu6.psi.com Sat Feb 4 06:15:32 1995 X-VM-v5-Data: ([t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["20489" "" " 4" "February" "1995" "05:13:50" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "487" "JudgeNet Digest #959 (Feb 04, 1995)" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.3) with X.500 id GAA11913; Sat, 4 Feb 1995 06:15:30 -0500 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.3) with SMTP id GAA11908; Sat, 4 Feb 1995 06:15:29 -0500 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA24497 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Sat, 4 Feb 95 06:15:25 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA25435 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 95 04:42:17 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA14371; 4 Feb 95 05:13:50 EST (Sat) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9502040513.AA14371 at synchro.com> From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #959 (Feb 04, 1995) Date: 4 Feb 95 05:13:50 EST (Sat) JudgeNet Digest #959 Sat 04 Feb 1995 THE BEER JUDGE DIGEST digest submissions: judge at synchro.com administrative requests: judge-request at synchro.com send cancellations & rank updates to the administrative address messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored FTP Archives: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu in /pub/judge WWW Archives: http://guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu/Beer/Judge Gopher Archives: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu Editor: Chuck Cox Archivist: Spencer Thomas Publishers: SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery Contents: Status of BJCP (John DeCarlo ) A look at the future... (rdevine) BJCP (Ed Hitchcock) what now (Aaron Birenboim) Re: THE NEW ORDER (bickham) Column for the Brews News (darrylri) AHA-BJCP split: judging and sanctioning?? (uswlsrap) A truly lengthy reply to our problems (sorry!) ("Lee Bussy") ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 3 Feb 95 14:15:16 EST From: John DeCarlo Subject: Status of BJCP Karen Barela, as president of the AHA, has announced that the AHA is withdrawing sponsorship of the BJCP, and has announced an intention to develop "a new beer evaluation program". Patrick Baker, as HWBTA Co-Director of the BJCP, as reiterated the HWBTA position about the desirability of having the BJCP be "independent of any single sponsoring entity". As a member of the AHA and a Certified BJCP judge, I would like to particularly ask the AHA to support an independent BJCP and avoid the seriously harmful position of creating another competing organization. There are serious problems with the AHA as it currently stands (lack of representation, lack of advocacy efforts, etc.) and an action as clearly divisive as creating another judging organization would be particularly harmful. I know there are many judges and other AHA current members who would be disgusted enough by such a move to seriously get involved in an effort to create "a useful and representative organization for homebrewers", which the AHA is arguably not. Again, Ms Barela and Charlie Papazian and any others in the AHA with decision-making capability (are there any others? is my list too long?), please reconsider. This type of move would definitely be harmful to homebrewers of all skills and interests. Thank you, John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 95 12:22:07 TZ From: rdevine at microsoft.com Subject: A look at the future... Now that the AHA has acted terminate its sponsorship of the BJCP and begun the formation of its own beer judging group, there seem to be several possible future outcomes. (1) The new AHA beer judge organization only covers the AHA national competition and possibly the annual GABF. All other US based competitions are handled under the current spun-off BJCP judges and are sponsored by non-AHA groups (HWBTA and BJCC). (2) The new AHA judging group reaches some kind of affiliation with beer judging groups from other nations (becoming more than just the _American_ Homebrewers Assoc??). The current BJCP remains only for US judges and is independent of any parent organization. Although the BJCP does not get funds from any organization today, it does not exactly have a "hands-off" relationship. (3) The ultimate step is a world-wide beer judging organization that offers beer judges trained in world-wide styles and is supported by both professional and hobbyist brewers in multiple countries. For example, the National Guild of Wine and Beer Judges is the UK group that is very similar to the BJCP. Would a trans-national group or some kind of loose affiliation across nations' boundaries be better for promoting homebrewing and beer judging? I don't know, but, on the face of it, I would support a UK group's definition of UK style beers and a German group that defines German style guidelines. Etc. (4) Homebrewing achieved great popularity because of changes in the US laws and the lack of good commercial beer. Now that many brewpubs and microbreweries are out there, it may either spark more homebrewing interest or it may stop all but the most ardent hobbyists from taking the time to brew their own. One possibility is that future brew competitions are opened up to both amateur and processional entrants so that a beer judging organization must be free of the AHA. The AHA decision can be a positive step now that homebrew contests can stand on their own. After all, the AHA is not the only group around. Bob Devine ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 16:33:14 -0400 (AST) From: Ed Hitchcock Subject: BJCP For some reason the Feb 1 digest never reached me, so it was with some shock that I read Feb 2's digest. One line in the reprinted extract of Ms. Barela's statement struck me. She said: "We sincerely hope that the cancellation of the BJCP goes smoothly..." Now, does she mean the cancellation of the agreement between BJCC, AHA and HWBTA, or was this a wee bit of a slip? The note from the HWBTA rep seemed to suggest that they don't feel it's a good idea to keep sole sponsorship of the BJCP, and I don't blame them, but he suggested that at least the HWBTA would help in the transition to independant body. So let's become an independant body. I'm keen. As long as the AHA let's us keep our membership lists... We'll need an office, an executive, and some operating funds. I think I know a few judges who would be willing to pay a few dollars a year to maintain their membership. Appoint an interim executive, write a charter, submit it to the rank and file for suggestions, hold an election and we're off! Sort of like starting a Union, only you don't need labour board approval... ---------------- ehitchcock at sparc.uccb.ns.ca the Pick & Fossil Picobrewery brewers of Ed's Paleo Pale Ale and Right Coast IPA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 13:17:50 -0800 From: mole at netcom.com (Aaron Birenboim) Subject: what now It seems clear that everybody supports the idea of a traditional, all volunteer, democratic independent BJCP. ok. How? Who owns the database of current BJCP participants? How can we get copies? It seems like some SINGLE individual, or group will have to draft a charter, and mail to current judges soliciting their participation. Barring that, we could get the database, distribute it electronicly, and form a local telephone call pyramid... to avoid postage and long distance telephone charges. I for one will be happy to encourage my club to run its competition under the charter of the new body. Our competition will be in fall or winter 95-96. General ideas on charter: Elected leadership. Style guides authored and reviewed by "master" class judge members. Certification and points buy STYLE. Testing will NOT, i repeat NOT involve memorization. People will be allowed to bring references to the test, and style guidelines will be available for beers tasted in the test. Perhaps even allow people to judge a selection of 3/5 styles on the test... if we certify by style. To reduce cost, have less essay ques, and add multuple choice. Most of test shoudl be based on weather you can TASTE things. (most of score based on judging portion) Provide FEEDBACK on tests. Have proctors write a note... heres where you need improvement... Guidelines a competition should follow for "certification"... i'm at a loss here. I have never organized one before. Lets get the discussion rolling. aaron ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 16:20:36 -0500 (EST) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Re: THE NEW ORDER BREWS at delphi.com writes: > DO NOT ASK FOR HWBTA SANCTIONING EITHER > SAVE YOUR MONEY! OVER???????? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard. You need sponsors to have successful competitions, and many of those sponsors are HWBTA members. Besides, one thing that has been constant is the support given to the homebrewing community by the HWBTA. > The Order of the Glass stands at seven right now and we welcome your sword > in our stead! We have responsibilities to the brewers who pay for their > evaluations and that is all. Don't forget that we do have a little motivation ourselves - to improve our brewing and the brewing of our peers who share their beer with us. Who could argue with a quest for better beer? Cheers, Scott - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Feb 95 13:55:00 PST From: darrylri at microsoft.com Subject: Column for the Brews News Rich, here is a column for the Seattle Brews Bros. February newsletter. I've included others on the mail because I think this is an important issue and want my opinion to be spread around in a timely fashion. To the others, if you'd like to, you're welcome to include this in your newsletters. --Darryl Richman BJCP Split? I just received this over the Internet this week: > January 31, 1995 > > It is with regret that the American Homebrewers Association has found it > necessary to cancel joint sponsorship of the Beer Judge Certification Program. > The joint sponsorship of the program, formed in 1985 under an agreement with > the Home Wine and Beer Trade Association will no longer be in effect as of > April 19, 1995. > > We are not yet certain about the changes that will take place as we are still > discussing the situation with HWBTA and BJCC representatives. Under the terms > of the original agreement, either program sponsor can cancel the joint > sponsorship with 90 days written notice to the other sponsor. I notified HWBTA > President Desmond Lundy in writing on January 18, 1995 that the agreement has > been canceled. > > We sincerely hope that the cancellation of the BJCP will go smoothly during > this 90 day period. It is our intention to work carefully and conscientiously > with the HWBTA and BJCC so that the transition can be handled to the > satisfaction of the members of the BJCC, both former sponsoring organizations, > and BJCP judges. We regret that we were unable to resolve the differences in > philosophy and style that have held back the current BJCP. > > The AHA is committed to making this transition a positive one. We have long > desired the BJCP to be educational, accessible, responsive and international in > scope. Because of this philosophy, we have decided to develop a new beer > evaluation program, one that represents the wide diversity of competitions and > judging in this country and the international community. Current BJCP judges > will be welcome to participate in the new program with equivalent judging > status. We also plan to form a new committee structure, elected from the > existing pool of BJCP judges. Our goal is to build the best program possible. > > A formal announcement with details about the transition will be mailed to all > judges at a later date. In the meantime, the program will continue unchanged > through April 19, 1995. > > Sincerely, > > Karen Barela > President, American Homebrewers Association This is an extremely disturbing turn of events. The BJCP has long provided a guiding hand in setting expectations of beer judging and beer style guidelines. This will certainly diminish the BJCP's usefulness, and will throw all sanctioning of competitions into the blender. Why will judges want to participate in a new program, when they've worked hard to get into the current one? Why will competition organizers want to sanction with the new program? Who should competition organizers sanction with? What becomes of the goodwill the current program has fostered? Since advancement in the BJCP is based on experience, it creates an environment where judges want to judge at competitions. What will judges do if they have to concern themselves with advancement in two programs. What will competition organizers do in order to get judges from two programs to participate? I believe that this move by the AHA can have only to their own motives in mind. I do not see any positive change here. The only positive way is to take this crisis and turn it into an opportunity. This change creates the possibility of making the BJCP into a truly open program that is run by and for the judges, to the advantage of the competition organizers. An organization that speaks with one voice on a particular issue of interest. A new incarnation of the BJCP must continue to be an educational program that provides a service to the craft brewing community, and is not politically motivated. It will have to supply its own sanctioning process, and it may be useful for it to provide a sample set of style guidelines. Such an organization should be able to take the credibility of the current BJCP and improve upon it. --Darryl Richman ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Feb 1995 18:02:05 EST From: uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Subject: AHA-BJCP split: judging and sanctioning?? Although most of us are too busy brewing and enjoying beer (not to mention the rest of our lives) to pay very much attention to organizational politics, we realize that such things can affect us to some extent. The withdrawal of the AHA from the BJCP has generated considerable discussion and few answers have been forthcoming, and may well not even be known right now My immediate question, however, is a relatively simple one: How does the breakup affect competition sanctioning after April? My understanding (perhaps incorrect) is that there are no concrete plans for the proposed AHA judge certification program, and I do not wish to speculate on how it may or may not be different from the current program. I can understand that the AHA may not have specifics in place yet, but I wish that Ms. Barela's statement had at least shared her vision of what the AHA hopes to achieve in their program and how homebrewers and beer judges that serve them may benefit. Given that there may not be anything in place this spring or summer, will an AHA sanction serve any purpose for competitions after April? We would be using the same BJCP judges we would use had the breakup not occurred, so we are providing the entrants we serve with the same assurance of a quality event. The change, then, is likely to be felt most immediately by the judges who are concerned about experience points being recorded. For those concerned about such things, what can we tell them? Will the current BJCP (sans AHA) continue to record points from AHA sanctioned competitions? Will the BJCP even require an AHA sanction to record points? To whom will competition organizers send reports? We will continue to promote high quality events and judging. We have a competition coming up in May, and we need some answers rather than vague pronouncements as we decide how or whether to proceed with sanctioning. Many clubs are in the same position and need the same answers from both the AHA and the BJCP. The AHA has served homebrewers in the past, and I hope they were responsible enough to decide how such basic considerations would be handled before making the decision they announced. Thanks for your time. Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino / Disoriented in Badgerspace /uswlsrap at ibmmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 18:05:37 +0000 From: "Lee Bussy" Subject: A truly lengthy reply to our problems (sorry!) Scott Bickham quotes Chuck Cox and adds his $0.02: > > Now that the AHA is out of the picture, I think it is time for the BJCP > > to become truly independent and democratic. > > I second that motion. Frankly I was a little surprised that the AHA made All in favor? We must however make an effort to contact out not challenged friends and get them to rally with us. > > I have had the opportunity to review some BJCP financial statements and > > am convinced that there has been quite a bit of administrative waste. I think this is the case but substantial income must still be raised to defray the costs of operation. A token fee (perhaps $5?)for all who will join the new order to process the necessary paperwork. Yearly dues are even a possibility. There has been alot of resistance to these ideas in the past but the apron to which we have for so long clung to is gone. > Here on Judgenet, we have developed some decent style guidelines - > if you look at the categories for the upcoming Boston Competition, Let's not count our chickens before they hatch. I still feel that basic style guidelines are good without grouping them. That way a competition organizer is free to group as he/she wishes. Let's not get sidetracked too quickly though. > Okay no more whining. Now that the wheels are in motion, we need to > formally create an independent BJCP with administators that are elected by > the homebrewing and beer judging community. This body would not be designed I agree. I suggest that we keep the present BJCC and elect members to be representatives form all major brewing areas. Every area that has a brewing/judging contingent that will support the cause will have representation. - -------------------------------- And I just knew BREWS would have something to say! :) > You are all whiners and wimps ! I wish that you would get with the new > program and open your eyes about all this crap between the AHA + HWBTA. How delicately put Brews...... :) True enough thouh. We have the power to end government by those with financial interests. It's high time to do it. > We must immediately stop the feeding of the bad systems . DO NOT ENTER THE > AHA NATIONAL COMPETITIONS! STOP GIVING THE BUGGERS YOUR MONEY! > > DO NOT ASK FOR HWBTA SANCTIONING EITHER > SAVE YOUR MONEY! OVER???????? One problem here. We need to emplace a way to recognize the experience gained in judging a competition in order to draw judges. No big suprise, judges come to get experience points. Russ, can nwe emplace something fairly rapidly to support this? BJCP sanctioned competitions? > We must assemble and elect our leaders . I can only suggest that we do it in > the heartland of our country in the shadow of the river of life, the mighty > Mississippi... in St Louis .. .at the heart of the Beast that drove us on > this Quest ...? Uh, I think that the geographical center of the Nation is in Kansas... :) Good idea though but I was sort of thinking KC. It is centrally located, has a large pool of judges, a major Airport and is withing driving range of Oklahoma City, St Louis, Chicago, the Wisconsin people and many others. > This like any other volunteer system could be run by the old ,the rich and > the retired. So I daresay that we must prevent that from happening and set > minimum standards for our leadership. Young stupid villains with balls to > match their swelling brains must be conjured up to ride the brewponys out of > the canyon. Uh, young and dumb here! :) I have made it clear in the past that I will work for the BJCP and my offer stands. > No fees need be paid to sanction competitions. They will advertise their So how will we pay for administration? > The Order of the Glass stands at seven right now and we welcome your sword > in our stead! We have responsibilities to the brewers who pay for their > evaluations and that is all. I don't know what the hell you just said but I agree! :) - -- -Lee Bussy | The 4 Basic Foodgroups.... | leeb at southwind.net | Salt, Fat, Beer & Women! | Wichita, Kansas | http://www.southwind.net/~leeb | ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************