From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Fri Mar 10 11:33:09 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["8152" "" "10" "March" "1995" "07:18:21" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "178" "JudgeNet Digest #993 (Mar 10, 1995)" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.3) with X.500 id LAA22994; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 11:33:07 -0500 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.3) with SMTP id LAA22882; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 11:32:32 -0500 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA01995 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Fri, 10 Mar 95 11:30:49 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA21712 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 95 08:51:44 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA06515; 10 Mar 95 07:18:21 EST (Fri) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9503100718.AA06515 at synchro.com> From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #993 (Mar 10, 1995) Date: 10 Mar 95 07:18:21 EST (Fri) JudgeNet Digest #993 Fri 10 Mar 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: Re: Strife & Unity (Chuck Cox) Where are we going here? (Robert L. Lamothe) In response to Brews (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Re: Anarchy vs.Democracy Reducks (BoskoDuck) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Mar 95 10:19:17 EST From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Re: Strife & Unity Bruce Stevens sez... > > Maybe Chuck can co-ordinate the nomination and seconding process for the next > week. At that point ,the ballot could be published and votes tabulated > during the following week. I haven't given up on the BJCP (yet), so I'm still working on improving that program. As a result, I don't currently have any inclination to become involved in an alternative program. Therefore, you should ask someone else to run your election. If the new & improved BJCC doesn't establish an election process immediately, then I will be interested in helping establish a competing program. - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 95 10:53:21 EST From: rll at sun_cmc.iol.unh.edu (Robert L. Lamothe) Subject: Where are we going here? Over the past several weeks I've been watching as Judgenet has become something of a flamefest with people badgering each other and commenting on each other characters. I've also seen people throwing out proposals on how to re-organize with a "my way or the highway" attitude, if you don't like it, don't join. Much of what I've seen has been counter productive, this is like a South American Revolution with alot of small splinter groups jockying for position, trying to get control of beer judging's future. It seems in many cases that there are a great many assumptions being made, assumptions that we are all talking about the same things all the time. I propose that rather than continue on this bend that we seem to be on, that we take some time to create a list of what exactly it is that we are trying to accomplish or get away from. What were the problems of the BJCP under the AHA/HWBTA administration. What would we like to see in a future judging program. What are the responsibilities that a judge should have to the organization and vice-versa. If we continue as we are, we will end up with a system that is no better than the one that exists, one that will probably be even worse than the one that exists, or one that is so broken with many groups trying to "go for glory" that it will be next to impossible for judges to advance and be recognized on a National level. Let's come up with a comprehensive list of what we don't like. A comprehensive list of what we do like, and a comprehensive list of what we'd like to see take place. In other words folks we need a "Calibration Beer" so that we're all starting from the same place. Once we've accomplished this, then we can become a truly democratic process where the entire body of the BJCP will make the decisions necessary for its future, or for the future of whatever Phoenix rises up from the ashes. I also suggest that we no longer worry about what the AHA thinks of the BJCP, in 10 days they won't be a part of it anyway. Lets put our focus where it really needs to be. Otherwise the AHA is going to end up winning by default as the only organization with enough organization to keep things going. The petty bickering, squabbling and powerplays will accomplish nothing more than it did for the American Indian when the Settler moved west. To use a tired cliche' United we stand, Divided we fall. -Bob - -- * Robert L. Lamothe University of New Hampshire * * rll at unh.edu Interoperablity lab room 337 * * (603)862-4349 Morse Hall * * * * "All I ask of life is a constant and exaggerated sense of my own * * importance." * ------------------------------ Date: 9 Mar 95 11:38:00 -0600 From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: In response to Brews Brews asks if he is the only one who wants to vote. Well, yes, I'd like to vote, but I agree with Russ that the first order of business is to ensure a smooth transition to independence and to make sure that nothing gets dropped in the interim. I think that the problems with the BJCP are not extensive and could be made even with an appointed BJCC. The most important thing is to not lose the trust of brewers during the transition to independence. I don't think money will be an issue if the BJCP beings sanctioning and gets to keep all the sanctioning money. Let's face it, all sanctioning buys you is a package that kind of tells you how to run a competition, an ad in the Zymurgy calendar, the right to advertize to judges that they will get points, the right to advertize to entrants that there will be BJCP judges there and the recording of judging points. That doesn't sound like $40 worth of labour and postage to me! I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude about the AHA program, but have already pledged my support for both the BJCP and Brews' proposed "Guild." Why support all of them? Well, because I'm not sure yet which is best and I want to give them all a chance to show what they have to offer. Unless the cumulative annual dues to the three programs gets excessive, I may belong to all three forever. Frankly, an elected board is a "good thing" but if an appointed board meets my needs and listens to my suggestions (and implements *some* of them) then I'm happy with that too. IOW, democracy is theoretically good, but the real thing I want is responsiveness. Al. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 23:13:22 -0500 From: BoskoDuck at aol.com Subject: Re: Anarchy vs.Democracy Reducks Master Judge and Homebrewer extraordinaire Tom Ayres writes: >I still believe firmly that my suggestion for a nationwide vote to choose a sanctioning body (independent BJCP or the AHA) has merit. I must say, unfortunately, that I share the doubts that have been voiced by many as to whether Karen and James and Company at the AHA would accept and abide by theresults of such a process. How about it, AHAers -- what's your opinion of this idea? I must agree with Tom here. This is a good way to get started, at least with respect to organizing ourselves. As far as the powers at the AHA are concerned, I think that they will take notice if we can show that sufficiently large numbers of us are committed to self-governing. Along these lines, I think it would be a good idea to let them know directly how you feel on the subject. I suggest that we all let our voices be heard in an informal exercise of democracy by sending them e-mail, snail mail, faxes or phone calls, informing them of our own opinion. Maybe we'll have enough clout as a group to get them to consider some of our ideas. Maybe, when we speak we'll ask for the old system back. But I doubt it. In any case, let your voice be heard. The people at AHA have their own e-mail addresses the format of which are firstname at aob.org, so get too it, folks. -Julian Zelazny National Judge ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************