From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Fri Feb 24 08:11:36 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["10283" "" "24" "February" "1995" "05:12:37" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "255" "JudgeNet Digest #979 (Feb 24, 1995)" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.2) with X.500 id IAA17540; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 08:11:29 -0500 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.2) with SMTP id IAA17535; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 08:11:28 -0500 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA13720 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Fri, 24 Feb 95 08:11:11 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA15976 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 95 06:47:31 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA27742; 24 Feb 95 05:12:37 EST (Fri) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9502240512.AA27742 at synchro.com> From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #979 (Feb 24, 1995) Date: 24 Feb 95 05:12:37 EST (Fri) JudgeNet Digest #979 Fri 24 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: Database ideas (bickham) AHA judge program (Jim Cave) Word from the BJCC ("Rad Equipment") Word from the BJCC Time:8:08 AM Date:2/22/95 AHA (Karen Barela/AHA President) New members of BJCC? (Waldon, Tracy ) RE: AHA STATEMENT (Mark Olson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 12:08:19 -0500 (EST) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Database ideas Hmm, I'm a little worried about not receiving the Judge Digest after my response (and probably many others as well )to the AHA letter. This posting is directed to those interested in how the database will be maintained. Whatever happens in the future, it's important that we establish the database so that we can contact the judges through a mailing, and update the records. My wife works in college development and alumni relations and currently has a database of over 30,000 records that includes educational history, addresses, parents' occupations, giving history, etc. What we need to do is small potatoes compared to what she does several times a week. In her last job, she had a database of 3000 donors on a Mac computer system, using hypercard stacks for each record. She feels that this would be adequate for our needs, and since Macs are better suited for newsletter production using Pagemaker, it would serve a dual purpose. It will be possible to search and download records by various fields, hence we can do global or restricted mailings (as is needed for notifying judges about regional competitions). I personally don't use IBM type PCs very often, but I would be willing to hear about the benefits compared to Mac systems. Another benefit of starting our database on a Mac is that my research group currently has two with sufficient memory and plenty of software, and I know other JudgeNet subscribers have Macs and are fluent in their use. In any case, with all of the compuetr expertise, we shouldn't have to outlay any capital for a computer and software. I recommend that while the restructuring is taking place, that we obtain copies of the judge records and establish a duplicate data base. I have no idea what the AHA uses, but we could either get copies of what they have or contact the judges directly through the listings that competition organizers receive. Scott - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 16:50:38 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Cave Subject: AHA judge program While the AHA proposal sounds good, is it candy-sweet and too good to be true? Is there substance to it? Consider the following: 1) The AHA announced their intention to withdraw from the current BJCP without first discussing it with the judges. For most of us, this was a revelation. The best information that we have had to date suggests that the AHA decided to leave for not only the reasons that they state, but also because there was a move a-foot to make the BJCP democratic, and fully stand-alone from either the HWBTA and the AHA. 2) Not-with-standing the information in 1) above, the AHA courts us by asking for our input. Did they ask your input when they left? Members of the AHA: have they ever asked you to vote on any matter? 3) The AHA is a subsidiary of a company called the Association of Brewers. Since the AOB is a company, it hardly represents an "Association" per se. An "Association" is something which is set up by a membership, based on a platform and policy determined by the membership. On a matter as important as the BJCP, where the integrity and quality of the judges is the first priority, I am not so certain that I would want it controlled by the AHA. The same goes for the sanctioning of competitions. 4) John Dale, the AHA rep on the BJCP prepared a letter for the judgenet, which in my mind was highly inflammatory. In this he indicated that the movement towards a democratic BJCP was "communistic"? Will John Dale be involved in the future judge program? I'd suggest at the very peril to that program! 5) The AHA has already stated that they have put together "....the following objectives with our new program...." They have obviously a process of determining policy. Presumably this was prepared by the staff and not by either the AHA membership or the judges. However benevolent this may seem the fact remains that the policy has already been determined without your input. 6) They offer a survey, but you are given the opportunity of indicating acceptance by vote? There is a very big difference between a vote and a survey. Just my thoughts..... Cheers! Jim Cave ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 1995 09:29:56 U From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: Word from the BJCC Subject: Word from the BJCC Time:8:08 AM Date:2/22/95 In light of the recent posts asking "what is happening?" and "what can be done now?", I respond with some repeat information, an update, and a request. The BJCC is moving toward a reorganization of the BJCP as an independent body. Nominations have been accepted of those interested in serving as at-large delegates to the BJCC. The appointment of those 3 judges will be announced very soon. Please remember that the BJCC has existing by-laws which it is required to obey. We are moving as quickly as we can. We are also including participants who do not have electronic access so things move a little slower than some of you would like. Remember that the 90% (if we accept Jim Cave's estimate) of current BJCP participants have not been a part of this discussion. Some of them may not even be aware that anything has happened. They certainly have not handed over their proxy to those of us who frequent JudgeNet. I have a responsibility to all BJCP participants and to that end I am trying to make this transition as peaceful as possible. I would like to request that my peers on the BJCC take their personal feud to private mail. Continuance of their current public "discussion" will only serve to distract us from the task at hand and can ultimately be quite counter productive to our goal of a viable independent BJCP. Russ Wigglesworth Chair, BJCC Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425 ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 95 17:46:18 EST From: Karen Barela/AHA President <75250.1350 at compuserve.com> Subject: AHA It's been brought to my attention that I need to clarify that John Dale's posting from last week was his opinion only and does not represent the views of the AHA, AHA staff or BJCC. John is a BJCC member, appointed by the AHA, but his views are his own. I would also like to clarify that the AHA was supportive of the "at large" election of delegates and that we even offered to pay for the elections. The structure of the BJCP however, did allow for us to contribute in this manner. Further, one of the principal goals for the AHA's new program is to have elected committee's and/or task forces to work on various parts of our judging program. I also want everyone to know that the AHA staff reads Judgenet regularly and we support having this forum for all of these opinions to be aired and discussed. - Karen ------------------------------ Date: Thu Feb 23 16:40:05 1995 From: (Waldon, Tracy ) Subject: New members of BJCC? I've been quietly (for now) following the BJCP\AHA spat and there is one issue that I am unclear about. Were several (3?) additional members appointed recently (i.e. pre-split) to the BJCC? Were they intended to represent the interests of judges in the BJCP? How were they chosen? How was it intended that they be chosen in the future? Could someone please explain this situation to me? A private E-mail response will suffice. Thank you for helping me understand this mess. ****************************************** Tracy Waldon twaldon at fcc.gov Just another paranoid anarchist on the ISH ****************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 10:48:00 -0700 From: mark.olson at toadhall.com (Mark Olson) Subject: RE: AHA STATEMENT In JudgeNet Digest 977, James Spence posted a very long message about the current relations between AHA, HWBTA and BJCP. It is very well written. Very polished. But it says little more than that they want everybody to tell them what to do, because the AHA's decision to terminate the partnership was unplanned, ill-considered, and apparently impulsive. That is why the new program is in such turmoil. The letter also did not address the issues raised here, in r.c.b. and in HBD. Mark Olson (mark.olson at toadhall.com) - --- ~ Tag-X Pro v0.90 ~ Oxymoron: Personalized Form Letter. * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 97 * Silver Xpress V4.01 - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: mark.olson at toadhall.com (Mark Olson) - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************