Subject: Digest for the period 1/3/02 - 1/4/02 Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 01:02:31 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC4241415D35" --Next_Part_SYNC4241415D35 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Digest for the period 1/2/02 - 1/3/02 (Lyle C. Brown) Zymurgy for Beginners Advertising (Paul Gatza) A little correct history of the AHA and the BJCP (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jay_Hersh_=28aka_Dr=2E_Beer=AE=29=22?=) --Next_Part_SYNC4241415D35 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC4241415D35" --Message_Part_SYNC4241415D35 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from m10.boston.juno.com ([64.136.24.73]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC422541584F for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 09:13:13 -0500 Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for <"extssRca8ocTdEyjEoV6mX2ri/kITDJR3vAhOdLakArUJeJG/9sNaw=="> Received: (from beerking1`at`juno.com) by m10.boston.juno.com (jqueuemail) id GP8Z7HUP; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 09:13:02 EST To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Cc: judge`at`synchro.com Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 09:11:29 -0500 Subject: Re: Digest for the period 1/2/02 - 1/3/02 Message-ID: <20020103.091249.760.0.beerking1`at`juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-8,11-12,16-19 From: "Lyle C. Brown" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Responding to Dave Houseman, ("Exactly what causes an almond flavor in beer > as a defect? Coconut?") John Palmer wrote: > Regarding the Almond Off-flavor: I doubt that it is caused by > coconut, but > I have yet to use coconut in a batch. ;-) While noting John's emoticon, I must point out that I doubt Dave was suggesting Coconut as a cause of Almond flavor. I suspect "Coconut?" was added as a second question, as in: "Exactly what causes..." My response to Dave is, "good question!" I first noted a coconut character in the Sam Adams Triple BOck. HAve only found it in very strong, malty beers. Is this a higher alcohol? Caused by large amounts of malt at warm ferment? Lyle C. Brown --Message_Part_SYNC4241415D35 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mailman.aob.org ([206.168.226.8]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC4227415950 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 11:15:00 -0500 Received: from aob21 (unassigned.aob.org [206.168.226.14] (may be forged)) by mailman.aob.org (Build 98 8.9.3/NT-8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA00038 for ; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 09:14:34 -0700 From: "Paul Gatza" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Zymurgy for Beginners Advertising Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 09:15:16 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Hi all. Here is some clarification on advertising in Zymurgy for Beginners. We opened up advertising in Zymurgy for Beginners to homebrew supply manufacturers, distributors and wholesalers. For a manufacturer, distributor or wholesaler that also has a storefront, we made the decision that the store could not be advertised, but that the specific products that qualified the business for inclusion in the issue could be. We excluded mail order operations and stores that did not meet these guidelines because we want shops to distribute the issue for free, which, if I was still a shop owner, I wouldn't do if it would send business elsewhere. In the case of St. Patrick's, the advertising staff and I were under the impression that St. Patrick's was distributing malts to others in the supply business. I believed this because of the old distribution flap with Briess, DeFalco's and St. Patrick's and the exclusive importation of certain malts by St. Patrick's. It has come to my attention that St. Patrick's may not be supplying these products except directly to customers. If that is the case, they would not be invited to advertise in the publication upon reissue (assuming the criteria remains the same). This publication is very basic and meant to provide support for the beginning homebrewer by both AHA and the shop that distributes the publication. The theory is that the more support that someone feels the more likely they are to continue with the hobby after their initial batch. Zymurgy for Beginners is given free to shops to give out free to purchasers of beginner equipment kits. If anyone on this forum has friends that are considering taking up homebrewing, please ask for a copy at your local homebrew supply shop. If the shop does not carry it, let me know and we can send out a copy and contact the shop to see if they would like the free copies. Paul Gatza Director--American Homebrewers Association Director--Institute for Brewing Studies Association of Brewers 736 Pearl St., Boulder, CO, USA 80302 +1.303.447.0816 ext. 122 mailto:paul`at`aob.org www.beertown.org --Message_Part_SYNC4241415D35 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from celticweb.com ([204.193.152.67]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC4235415C2A for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 19:44:11 -0500 Received: from jsh.doctorbeer.com [206.15.128.144] by celticweb.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-5.08) id AAD099102A0; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 19:44:00 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020103194641.00ab3f00`at`pop.doctorbeer.com> X-Sender: drbeer`at`doctorbeer.com at pop.doctorbeer.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 19:54:59 -0500 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jay_Hersh_=28aka_Dr=2E_Beer=AE=29=22?= Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: A little correct history of the AHA and the BJCP Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message At the end of this post you'll see a proposal I created in 1993 with the input and interest of George Fix. George submitted this proposal to the Karen Barela, then President of the AHA , prior to the (then appointed) Board of Advisors meeting at the 1993 National Conference asking it be discussed at that meeting. Karen didn't even dignify George's request with an answer, she just ignored him. At the Conference itself I gave George photocopies of this which were handed out to some of the other appointed BoA members (Steve, do you recall getting a copy of this? I don't recall if you ever got one or not). If you read the proposal you'll see that what it asked for was to elect BoA members. This was something which the AHA grudgingly changed it's mind on a few years later (95 or 96?) when membership began to decline. What was asked for was to set NON financial policies for the operation of competitions and judging program including the BJCP grading and style guidelines. The AHA wouldn't even give this proposal, submitted by one of their own appointed board members (George Fix), the dignity of a hearing and it never saw the light of day. Lyle said >There came a time, when judges felt the AHA was exercising too much control over the BJCP, >and the HWBTA no longer desired to fund the BJCP. My view of things at the time was that >these were the main reasons BJCP broke away from the AHA (and HWBTA!). There were >those who harbored ill feelings towards the AHA, but as Dave stated, that is now water under >the bridge. Lyle's memory fails him. The BJCP did not "break away" from the AHA, it was kicked out. The AHA notified the HWBTA of it's intent to withdraw with very little advanced notice. In fact in the year following the dissolution the AHA actually began to try to solicit volunteers to create it's own competing judge recognition program. I know because myself and other Boston Wort Processors were solicited by them, and all passed on the opportunity (some less politely than others). I'm absolutely certain people in other regions were solicited as well. Basically none of the BJCP stalwarts wanted to have anything to do with this AHA effort after the way the AHA had behaved. An argument ensued between the HWBTA and the AHA over the BJCPs remaining funds and it took a while to resolve. An interim board of directors was appointed to restructure the BJCP as an independent group My observation on this is that this bit of face saving by the AHA was borne of the fact that it took less than a year for the AHA to really realize how much volunteer work had been involved in keeping the BJCP running. I could give you a list dozens of names long and still forget dozens and dozens more. Suffice to say that the AHA realized that having alienated the people that did all this work by pulling the plug on the BJCP they'd never be able to pull off a judging program of their own given their failing financial position and plummeting membership. So I have to respectfully disagree with what Lyle posted. What Lyle posted is either short memory or revisionist history. The real truth is a whole lot messier, and what I post is based on my own extensive personal experience with the AHA and the BJCP. In case you're wondering I took the test in 86 the same time Lyle did, was one of the first 10 Master Judges in 93, became the 3rd Grand Master Judge, served 2 years as Assistant Exam Director to Scott Bickham in the independent BJCP, then served 2.5 years as Exam Co-Director, first with Scott, then with Dave Sapsis. I didn't see things happening in anywhere near the benevolent manner Lyle describes. In a nutshell, what really happened was that having helped create the homebrewing movement, and geared their organization to indoctrinating new brewers and marketing to them (quite "not for profitably" I might add), the people running the AHA found themselves overtaken by both the increasing technical expertise of it's members and their desire to have some say in running the show. Rather than realizing their baby had grown up and could stand on it's own they tried to maintain tight control and instead of expanding to meet the needs of their ever more sophisticated older members, they maintained the same old formula. When this didn't sit well with the increasing number of intermediate to advanced homebrewers they had helped create they became increasingly paternalistic. In doing so they made some very bad decisions (both business wise and for the hobby at large) that had the effect of further alienating the growing number of intermediate and advanced hobbyists. This created (at least short term) opportunities for other business ventures to try to fill the void. One of those bad decisions was pulling out of the BJCP. I wouldn't claim that move caused a rush to the exits, but it certainly was a last straw for many who'd already considered not renewing membership owing to Zymurgy's realtively unsophisticated content. For those of us who experienced these events we feel that what we're doing is, contrary to Lyle's statement, not "perpetuating the problems which led to the split in the first place", but rather rightly questioning the motives of those who would position the BJCP closer to the AHA, as well as questioning the risks and benefits to the BJCP and in doing so defending the successes we've had in creating a stable independent BJCP. As Dave Perez so clearly pointed out, the AHA while technically being chartered as a "Not For Profit" organization it has rarely operated that way. As many folks here have shown in their posts, the AHA has screwed shop owners when it suited them. They've tried (and succeeded) in screwing their own writers when it suited them. They tried to screw the BJCP years ago and it blew up in their faces. Only then did they first begin to change their tune, and the change is slow and it's not at clear to many how far it's gone. Dave also says that the BJCP should tell the AHA what it needs to do to get back into the BJCP's good graces. I say that it's the reverse. For many years now that BJCP and the AHA have co-existed in their own spheres and have had a very small amount of mutually beneficial cooperation. Having once been in peril of disappearing due to the AHA's actions the BJCP has fought incredibly hard through the efforts of many, many people to be a successful, stable self sustaining organization. It is the AHA that is the one that has struggled significantly since the break up. It is the AHA that would appear to gain more from joint efforts, and it is the BJCP that has more to lose. Regarding Steve's post, I acknowledge that Steve has done tons for this hobby, but I was dissappointed that given his unique position as someone somewhat on the inside of all this (though not clear how much he knows about the early post split BJCP since my impression is that his tenure as a BJCP rep is recent), that his post was not far more forthcoming about the real details about how the AHA transitioned to an elected BoA from an appointed one, or how and when it began to purge the incredibly arrogant leadership whose short sighted policies led to the BJCP split off and subsequent financial woes of the AHA, and in the light of some of what has been posted here about some of the way they still appear to do business, what is different now about those in real charge of the day to day operations of the AHA that we should be increasingly willing to tie the BJCPs future closer to it. As one who's been around this a real long time, I say that before we blindly go down a path to kissing and making up and possibly doing something that could have a negative effect on the long term health of the BJCP let's ask some REALLY TOUGH HARD NOSED QUESTIONS! Questions like What form would a reconciliation between the AHA and BJCP take? What are the specific details? What will it cost the BJCP in $ and time to implement? What is in it for the BJCP? What is in it for homebrewing in general? Steve says some of his goals are >BJCP Become the independent standards and certification organization for anything about beer. I can't say that it's already this, but it's a good way there. At least more so than anyone else, but there are some real tough issues to address To me that means having more income and some full time staff. All still tightly run by the members thought their elected officials.To that end I envision a commercial version of the BJCP program (actually I stole this vision but I'm running with it anyway). This commercial version of the program has three different tests, one for wait staff (easy), one for beer professionals (hard) and one for Master Beer Sommelier (nearly impossible).I'm planning on setting things up so they make lots of money, allowing the BJCP to hire paid test graders and other staff. The goal of this program (in my opinion) is to make sure that the people who deal with beer for a living know a lot about beer culture and that this translates to the general public, hence making my beer life more enjoyable. Steve brings up some of those issues. These are good ideas, and they have been discussed before. The biggest issue that always comes up with this type of program is "Why would commercial interests buy into this?". To date the answer is and has been they won't! I like this idea myself and floated some similar ideas a while back, but when you look at the many ratings programs out there already it's not clear why they'd all of a sudden agree to accept the BJCP setting the standard. In fact historically the Association of Brewers GABF has been at one time antagonistic to using BJCP judges and styles, and is now at best ambivilent. All About Beer magazine has it's own awards system with it's own style system. These all serve their commercial interests. Professional brewers often scoff at BJCP judges at worst, or at least consider BJCP style guidelines an anachronism secondary to their own interest in selling beer (who cares if it's overhopped for a , I have a GABF medal and people buy it so heck with the BJCP guidelines). And where are you going to get even paid people with the skill level to grade the kind of test volume you're talking about here? I'm not being elitist to state that the pool of people qualified to grade tests is not that large. I'm speaking from experience as one of the persons who ran the testing program for over 4 years... I've seen a lot in 16 years as a judge and home brewer. I've seen a lot of BS, and I've seen a lot of really fun times with good people. I don't think that anyone engaged in this discussion is acting out of animosity or spite. Despite what many of you may think, I'm quite interested to hear what the AHA might have to say. But I am also QUITE SKEPTICAL of their motives. Despite their not for profit status (which I think is a joke) they have demonstrated time and again that they run themselves like a business. Having been part of the group that worked long and hard to help the BJCP be a stable self governing, self sustaining membership organization I DO NOT WANT TO SQUANDER THAT. That doesn't mean there isn't more that the BJCP might do to benefit the hobby, and that some of those things might mean partnering with the AHA. But before I'll sit by quietly and watch people forget all that has gone before I'm going to ask a lot of tough questions and raise my voice whenever necessary to protect the interests of the BJCP. So I ask that those who've read this far bear in mind that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Having been in the BJCP for 16 years and had the privilege to work with the outstanding group of people who have made it what it is there is no way I'll sit on the sidelines quietly if folks try to take the BJCP in a direction that would jeopardize what has been accomplished to date. Until there is both concrete proposals to evaluate that have tangible benefits for the BJCP and/or homebrewing at large, and those proposals contain evidence that the AHA is credible partner that will live up to it's end of the deal I will remain a skeptic. Happy Brew Year, Jay H. aka Dr. Beer (a registered trademark) PS: here is the 1993 proposal that never saw the light of a AHA Board of Advisors meeting Two Proposals for Elected Board of Advisors to the AHA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Motivation: Increasingly members have begun to feel that they have no stake in how the AHA is governed. While most members are quite satisfied with the AHA's role as a publishing house, very few would describe it as a membership organization. This is because other than discounts on the conference fee (an event which a very small percentage of members attend in any given year) and merchandise there are few tangible benefits to membership. As the organization and its associated competion and judge certification programs have grown so has criticism of the management of these programs from those served by them. To its credit the AHA has recently begun to respond to the most severe problems by distributing the First Round Competition Judging and by adding additional personnel to the corps of BJCP administrators. Of course these are measures which some will say are long overdue, and that additional changes are still needed. It is the feeling of many members, some of them on the current appointed Board of Advisors that an elected, empowered B of A would be more in touch with, and responsive to the changing needs of the AHA members. The following are two proposals for conducting elections for the Board of Advisors. Of course an elected Board of Advisors is nice, but common to both proposals is a need to empower the Board of Advisors. This would mean splitting the current responsibilities of the AHA administration into two separate areas. An excellent model for such a split are professional organizations such as the Association for Computing Machinery or the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, or for that matter most other professional organizations. Publishing: The AHA does an excellent job of publishing Zymurgy and as such this should remain virtually unchanged. The only changes that might be needed would be a formal arrangement for Zymurgy to provide support for the membership services. Merchandising: Again no need for change. Advocacy: The AHA from time to time provides an advocacy role to groups trying to modify laws governing Brewpubs, microbreweries and homebrewing at the state and local level. Since continuity is important this role should continue to be handled by full time staff. At this point it should be mentioned that the changes necessary to empower the B of A are in fact fairly minimal. As with the above mentioned professional organizations, a full time staff is necessary to support the services provided to the membership. Typically this staff is shared to varying degrees with the Publishing/Merchandising/etc... arms of the organization. What empowerment does mean however is the ability to set and manage policy for membership services. These would include the national conference, competition, Beer Judge Certification Program and any other services the Board might choose to provide within the limits of the AHA budget. Of course a budgetary oversight role and a reasonable division of funds between membership services and Publishing services would be maintained. Conference: As with the ACM and IEEE the B of A would choose a Conference Committee. The Committee's role would be to provide (on a volunteer basis, reasonable expenses reimbursed) logistical support for the conference. This would include soliciting and selecting the site, speakers, etc.... and perhaps even setting up and disbursing funds, all with the assistance of full time AHA staff and under the oversight fo the B of A. (ACM and IEEE host several conferences, some with attendance of over 20,000 people, in such a manner) Competition: This could be held in a similar fashion as the past 2 years with the B of A choosing local competition committees for the various regions. Again the AHA staff would provide support and the B of A oversight. BJCP: The B of A would choose the director of the BJCP and would vote to accept/reject nomination of such assistants as the BJCP director may require. AHA Staff would maintain the database. Additional program committees can be created for temporary or permanent duration at B of A discretion and within budgetary limits. Since the AHA will maintain staff whose duties will be to provide support for membership services the B of A should be empowered to approve hiring recommendations for staff made by the AHA president, and should be able to remove for due cause any staff member not providing a responsive level of service to the membership. These adjustments to the organization of the AHA in place it would become a question of how to choose the members of the Board of Advisors. For this there are two alternate methods, both reasonable, and both with different advantages/characteristics. Method One - Direct Elections ------------------------------------------- This method closely parallels how professional organizations choose their leaders, and certain organizations such as credit unions or some retirement funds or mutual stock funds choose their representative Boards. In this plan nominations are solicited via an announcement in the membership magazine. A gating mechanism such as signature requirement of a reasonable number of members might be applicable. At the close of the nomination period profiles of nominees would be published in the magazine, and a voting card provided for all member's copies. Alternately the ballot and descriptions could be mailed under separate cover. This system would allow for B of A seats to have staggered terms. It would als provide all members with a direct voice in the governing of the membership services. A slight drawback is the minimal added cost of ballot preparation, mailing and tabulation. Method Two Grass Roots -------------------------------------- Since many of the membership services affect club members a second alternative would be to elect B of A members through the clubs. Each club would poll their own membership. Club votes could be equal, or weighted by club size (clubs would have to either declare members names at voting time, this would serve as a means to validate club membership for club-only national competion purposes, alternatively each club could be assessed a nominal per-member fee, this would provide revenue and deter clubs from bloating membership lists to gain influence). All clubs could either vote for the same slate of nationwide candidates, or regional representatives could be chosen based on equally apportioned districts. In addition "at large" members could be elected via a direct mailing to provide representation to people who don't participate in clubs, by the clubs, as above, or at a "congress" held at the national conference. Such a congress could be comprised of a representative from each club that paid per-member fees (a minimum club size could be set) and in addition to (or instead of) electing at large members could also provide direct feedback to and ratification of B of A policy. The advantages of this method are several. It could provide revenue to the AHA, create a direct link between clubs and regional representatives, and create a broad grass roots representation by effectively making all club members AHA members. Drawbacks to this method are that it would not provide Zymurgy subscribers (ie. current "members") with a means of representation unless they also particpated in a local club. Additionally it would likely require a newsletter distributed to clubs for them to incorporate in their newsletters as a means of feedback to members. Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalts --Message_Part_SYNC4241415D35-- --Next_Part_SYNC4241415D35-- Subject: Digest for the period 1/3/02 - 1/4/02 Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 01:02:31 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC4241415D35" --Next_Part_SYNC4241415D35 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Digest for the period 1/2/02 - 1/3/02 (Lyle C. Brown) Zymurgy for Beginners Advertising (Paul Gatza) A little correct history of the AHA and the BJCP (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jay_Hersh_=28aka_Dr=2E_Beer=AE=29=22?=) --Next_Part_SYNC4241415D35 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC4241415D35" --Message_Part_SYNC4241415D35 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from m10.boston.juno.com ([64.136.24.73]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC422541584F for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 09:13:13 -0500 Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for <"extssRca8ocTdEyjEoV6mX2ri/kITDJR3vAhOdLakArUJeJG/9sNaw=="> Received: (from beerking1`at`juno.com) by m10.boston.juno.com (jqueuemail) id GP8Z7HUP; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 09:13:02 EST To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Cc: judge`at`synchro.com Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 09:11:29 -0500 Subject: Re: Digest for the period 1/2/02 - 1/3/02 Message-ID: <20020103.091249.760.0.beerking1`at`juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-8,11-12,16-19 From: "Lyle C. Brown" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Responding to Dave Houseman, ("Exactly what causes an almond flavor in beer > as a defect? Coconut?") John Palmer wrote: > Regarding the Almond Off-flavor: I doubt that it is caused by > coconut, but > I have yet to use coconut in a batch. ;-) While noting John's emoticon, I must point out that I doubt Dave was suggesting Coconut as a cause of Almond flavor. I suspect "Coconut?" was added as a second question, as in: "Exactly what causes..." My response to Dave is, "good question!" I first noted a coconut character in the Sam Adams Triple BOck. HAve only found it in very strong, malty beers. Is this a higher alcohol? Caused by large amounts of malt at warm ferment? Lyle C. Brown --Message_Part_SYNC4241415D35 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mailman.aob.org ([206.168.226.8]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC4227415950 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 11:15:00 -0500 Received: from aob21 (unassigned.aob.org [206.168.226.14] (may be forged)) by mailman.aob.org (Build 98 8.9.3/NT-8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA00038 for ; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 09:14:34 -0700 From: "Paul Gatza" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Zymurgy for Beginners Advertising Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 09:15:16 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Hi all. Here is some clarification on advertising in Zymurgy for Beginners. We opened up advertising in Zymurgy for Beginners to homebrew supply manufacturers, distributors and wholesalers. For a manufacturer, distributor or wholesaler that also has a storefront, we made the decision that the store could not be advertised, but that the specific products that qualified the business for inclusion in the issue could be. We excluded mail order operations and stores that did not meet these guidelines because we want shops to distribute the issue for free, which, if I was still a shop owner, I wouldn't do if it would send business elsewhere. In the case of St. Patrick's, the advertising staff and I were under the impression that St. Patrick's was distributing malts to others in the supply business. I believed this because of the old distribution flap with Briess, DeFalco's and St. Patrick's and the exclusive importation of certain malts by St. Patrick's. It has come to my attention that St. Patrick's may not be supplying these products except directly to customers. If that is the case, they would not be invited to advertise in the publication upon reissue (assuming the criteria remains the same). This publication is very basic and meant to provide support for the beginning homebrewer by both AHA and the shop that distributes the publication. The theory is that the more support that someone feels the more likely they are to continue with the hobby after their initial batch. Zymurgy for Beginners is given free to shops to give out free to purchasers of beginner equipment kits. If anyone on this forum has friends that are considering taking up homebrewing, please ask for a copy at your local homebrew supply shop. If the shop does not carry it, let me know and we can send out a copy and contact the shop to see if they would like the free copies. Paul Gatza Director--American Homebrewers Association Director--Institute for Brewing Studies Association of Brewers 736 Pearl St., Boulder, CO, USA 80302 +1.303.447.0816 ext. 122 mailto:paul`at`aob.org www.beertown.org --Message_Part_SYNC4241415D35 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from celticweb.com ([204.193.152.67]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC4235415C2A for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 19:44:11 -0500 Received: from jsh.doctorbeer.com [206.15.128.144] by celticweb.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-5.08) id AAD099102A0; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 19:44:00 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020103194641.00ab3f00`at`pop.doctorbeer.com> X-Sender: drbeer`at`doctorbeer.com at pop.doctorbeer.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 19:54:59 -0500 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jay_Hersh_=28aka_Dr=2E_Beer=AE=29=22?= Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: A little correct history of the AHA and the BJCP Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message At the end of this post you'll see a proposal I created in 1993 with the input and interest of George Fix. George submitted this proposal to the Karen Barela, then President of the AHA , prior to the (then appointed) Board of Advisors meeting at the 1993 National Conference asking it be discussed at that meeting. Karen didn't even dignify George's request with an answer, she just ignored him. At the Conference itself I gave George photocopies of this which were handed out to some of the other appointed BoA members (Steve, do you recall getting a copy of this? I don't recall if you ever got one or not). If you read the proposal you'll see that what it asked for was to elect BoA members. This was something which the AHA grudgingly changed it's mind on a few years later (95 or 96?) when membership began to decline. What was asked for was to set NON financial policies for the operation of competitions and judging program including the BJCP grading and style guidelines. The AHA wouldn't even give this proposal, submitted by one of their own appointed board members (George Fix), the dignity of a hearing and it never saw the light of day. Lyle said >There came a time, when judges felt the AHA was exercising too much control over the BJCP, >and the HWBTA no longer desired to fund the BJCP. My view of things at the time was that >these were the main reasons BJCP broke away from the AHA (and HWBTA!). There were >those who harbored ill feelings towards the AHA, but as Dave stated, that is now water under >the bridge. Lyle's memory fails him. The BJCP did not "break away" from the AHA, it was kicked out. The AHA notified the HWBTA of it's intent to withdraw with very little advanced notice. In fact in the year following the dissolution the AHA actually began to try to solicit volunteers to create it's own competing judge recognition program. I know because myself and other Boston Wort Processors were solicited by them, and all passed on the opportunity (some less politely than others). I'm absolutely certain people in other regions were solicited as well. Basically none of the BJCP stalwarts wanted to have anything to do with this AHA effort after the way the AHA had behaved. An argument ensued between the HWBTA and the AHA over the BJCPs remaining funds and it took a while to resolve. An interim board of directors was appointed to restructure the BJCP as an independent group My observation on this is that this bit of face saving by the AHA was borne of the fact that it took less than a year for the AHA to really realize how much volunteer work had been involved in keeping the BJCP running. I could give you a list dozens of names long and still forget dozens and dozens more. Suffice to say that the AHA realized that having alienated the people that did all this work by pulling the plug on the BJCP they'd never be able to pull off a judging program of their own given their failing financial position and plummeting membership. So I have to respectfully disagree with what Lyle posted. What Lyle posted is either short memory or revisionist history. The real truth is a whole lot messier, and what I post is based on my own extensive personal experience with the AHA and the BJCP. In case you're wondering I took the test in 86 the same time Lyle did, was one of the first 10 Master Judges in 93, became the 3rd Grand Master Judge, served 2 years as Assistant Exam Director to Scott Bickham in the independent BJCP, then served 2.5 years as Exam Co-Director, first with Scott, then with Dave Sapsis. I didn't see things happening in anywhere near the benevolent manner Lyle describes. In a nutshell, what really happened was that having helped create the homebrewing movement, and geared their organization to indoctrinating new brewers and marketing to them (quite "not for profitably" I might add), the people running the AHA found themselves overtaken by both the increasing technical expertise of it's members and their desire to have some say in running the show. Rather than realizing their baby had grown up and could stand on it's own they tried to maintain tight control and instead of expanding to meet the needs of their ever more sophisticated older members, they maintained the same old formula. When this didn't sit well with the increasing number of intermediate to advanced homebrewers they had helped create they became increasingly paternalistic. In doing so they made some very bad decisions (both business wise and for the hobby at large) that had the effect of further alienating the growing number of intermediate and advanced hobbyists. This created (at least short term) opportunities for other business ventures to try to fill the void. One of those bad decisions was pulling out of the BJCP. I wouldn't claim that move caused a rush to the exits, but it certainly was a last straw for many who'd already considered not renewing membership owing to Zymurgy's realtively unsophisticated content. For those of us who experienced these events we feel that what we're doing is, contrary to Lyle's statement, not "perpetuating the problems which led to the split in the first place", but rather rightly questioning the motives of those who would position the BJCP closer to the AHA, as well as questioning the risks and benefits to the BJCP and in doing so defending the successes we've had in creating a stable independent BJCP. As Dave Perez so clearly pointed out, the AHA while technically being chartered as a "Not For Profit" organization it has rarely operated that way. As many folks here have shown in their posts, the AHA has screwed shop owners when it suited them. They've tried (and succeeded) in screwing their own writers when it suited them. They tried to screw the BJCP years ago and it blew up in their faces. Only then did they first begin to change their tune, and the change is slow and it's not at clear to many how far it's gone. Dave also says that the BJCP should tell the AHA what it needs to do to get back into the BJCP's good graces. I say that it's the reverse. For many years now that BJCP and the AHA have co-existed in their own spheres and have had a very small amount of mutually beneficial cooperation. Having once been in peril of disappearing due to the AHA's actions the BJCP has fought incredibly hard through the efforts of many, many people to be a successful, stable self sustaining organization. It is the AHA that is the one that has struggled significantly since the break up. It is the AHA that would appear to gain more from joint efforts, and it is the BJCP that has more to lose. Regarding Steve's post, I acknowledge that Steve has done tons for this hobby, but I was dissappointed that given his unique position as someone somewhat on the inside of all this (though not clear how much he knows about the early post split BJCP since my impression is that his tenure as a BJCP rep is recent), that his post was not far more forthcoming about the real details about how the AHA transitioned to an elected BoA from an appointed one, or how and when it began to purge the incredibly arrogant leadership whose short sighted policies led to the BJCP split off and subsequent financial woes of the AHA, and in the light of some of what has been posted here about some of the way they still appear to do business, what is different now about those in real charge of the day to day operations of the AHA that we should be increasingly willing to tie the BJCPs future closer to it. As one who's been around this a real long time, I say that before we blindly go down a path to kissing and making up and possibly doing something that could have a negative effect on the long term health of the BJCP let's ask some REALLY TOUGH HARD NOSED QUESTIONS! Questions like What form would a reconciliation between the AHA and BJCP take? What are the specific details? What will it cost the BJCP in $ and time to implement? What is in it for the BJCP? What is in it for homebrewing in general? Steve says some of his goals are >BJCP Become the independent standards and certification organization for anything about beer. I can't say that it's already this, but it's a good way there. At least more so than anyone else, but there are some real tough issues to address To me that means having more income and some full time staff. All still tightly run by the members thought their elected officials.To that end I envision a commercial version of the BJCP program (actually I stole this vision but I'm running with it anyway). This commercial version of the program has three different tests, one for wait staff (easy), one for beer professionals (hard) and one for Master Beer Sommelier (nearly impossible).I'm planning on setting things up so they make lots of money, allowing the BJCP to hire paid test graders and other staff. The goal of this program (in my opinion) is to make sure that the people who deal with beer for a living know a lot about beer culture and that this translates to the general public, hence making my beer life more enjoyable. Steve brings up some of those issues. These are good ideas, and they have been discussed before. The biggest issue that always comes up with this type of program is "Why would commercial interests buy into this?". To date the answer is and has been they won't! I like this idea myself and floated some similar ideas a while back, but when you look at the many ratings programs out there already it's not clear why they'd all of a sudden agree to accept the BJCP setting the standard. In fact historically the Association of Brewers GABF has been at one time antagonistic to using BJCP judges and styles, and is now at best ambivilent. All About Beer magazine has it's own awards system with it's own style system. These all serve their commercial interests. Professional brewers often scoff at BJCP judges at worst, or at least consider BJCP style guidelines an anachronism secondary to their own interest in selling beer (who cares if it's overhopped for a , I have a GABF medal and people buy it so heck with the BJCP guidelines). And where are you going to get even paid people with the skill level to grade the kind of test volume you're talking about here? I'm not being elitist to state that the pool of people qualified to grade tests is not that large. I'm speaking from experience as one of the persons who ran the testing program for over 4 years... I've seen a lot in 16 years as a judge and home brewer. I've seen a lot of BS, and I've seen a lot of really fun times with good people. I don't think that anyone engaged in this discussion is acting out of animosity or spite. Despite what many of you may think, I'm quite interested to hear what the AHA might have to say. But I am also QUITE SKEPTICAL of their motives. Despite their not for profit status (which I think is a joke) they have demonstrated time and again that they run themselves like a business. Having been part of the group that worked long and hard to help the BJCP be a stable self governing, self sustaining membership organization I DO NOT WANT TO SQUANDER THAT. That doesn't mean there isn't more that the BJCP might do to benefit the hobby, and that some of those things might mean partnering with the AHA. But before I'll sit by quietly and watch people forget all that has gone before I'm going to ask a lot of tough questions and raise my voice whenever necessary to protect the interests of the BJCP. So I ask that those who've read this far bear in mind that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Having been in the BJCP for 16 years and had the privilege to work with the outstanding group of people who have made it what it is there is no way I'll sit on the sidelines quietly if folks try to take the BJCP in a direction that would jeopardize what has been accomplished to date. Until there is both concrete proposals to evaluate that have tangible benefits for the BJCP and/or homebrewing at large, and those proposals contain evidence that the AHA is credible partner that will live up to it's end of the deal I will remain a skeptic. Happy Brew Year, Jay H. aka Dr. Beer (a registered trademark) PS: here is the 1993 proposal that never saw the light of a AHA Board of Advisors meeting Two Proposals for Elected Board of Advisors to the AHA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Motivation: Increasingly members have begun to feel that they have no stake in how the AHA is governed. While most members are quite satisfied with the AHA's role as a publishing house, very few would describe it as a membership organization. This is because other than discounts on the conference fee (an event which a very small percentage of members attend in any given year) and merchandise there are few tangible benefits to membership. As the organization and its associated competion and judge certification programs have grown so has criticism of the management of these programs from those served by them. To its credit the AHA has recently begun to respond to the most severe problems by distributing the First Round Competition Judging and by adding additional personnel to the corps of BJCP administrators. Of course these are measures which some will say are long overdue, and that additional changes are still needed. It is the feeling of many members, some of them on the current appointed Board of Advisors that an elected, empowered B of A would be more in touch with, and responsive to the changing needs of the AHA members. The following are two proposals for conducting elections for the Board of Advisors. Of course an elected Board of Advisors is nice, but common to both proposals is a need to empower the Board of Advisors. This would mean splitting the current responsibilities of the AHA administration into two separate areas. An excellent model for such a split are professional organizations such as the Association for Computing Machinery or the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, or for that matter most other professional organizations. Publishing: The AHA does an excellent job of publishing Zymurgy and as such this should remain virtually unchanged. The only changes that might be needed would be a formal arrangement for Zymurgy to provide support for the membership services. Merchandising: Again no need for change. Advocacy: The AHA from time to time provides an advocacy role to groups trying to modify laws governing Brewpubs, microbreweries and homebrewing at the state and local level. Since continuity is important this role should continue to be handled by full time staff. At this point it should be mentioned that the changes necessary to empower the B of A are in fact fairly minimal. As with the above mentioned professional organizations, a full time staff is necessary to support the services provided to the membership. Typically this staff is shared to varying degrees with the Publishing/Merchandising/etc... arms of the organization. What empowerment does mean however is the ability to set and manage policy for membership services. These would include the national conference, competition, Beer Judge Certification Program and any other services the Board might choose to provide within the limits of the AHA budget. Of course a budgetary oversight role and a reasonable division of funds between membership services and Publishing services would be maintained. Conference: As with the ACM and IEEE the B of A would choose a Conference Committee. The Committee's role would be to provide (on a volunteer basis, reasonable expenses reimbursed) logistical support for the conference. This would include soliciting and selecting the site, speakers, etc.... and perhaps even setting up and disbursing funds, all with the assistance of full time AHA staff and under the oversight fo the B of A. (ACM and IEEE host several conferences, some with attendance of over 20,000 people, in such a manner) Competition: This could be held in a similar fashion as the past 2 years with the B of A choosing local competition committees for the various regions. Again the AHA staff would provide support and the B of A oversight. BJCP: The B of A would choose the director of the BJCP and would vote to accept/reject nomination of such assistants as the BJCP director may require. AHA Staff would maintain the database. Additional program committees can be created for temporary or permanent duration at B of A discretion and within budgetary limits. Since the AHA will maintain staff whose duties will be to provide support for membership services the B of A should be empowered to approve hiring recommendations for staff made by the AHA president, and should be able to remove for due cause any staff member not providing a responsive level of service to the membership. These adjustments to the organization of the AHA in place it would become a question of how to choose the members of the Board of Advisors. For this there are two alternate methods, both reasonable, and both with different advantages/characteristics. Method One - Direct Elections ------------------------------------------- This method closely parallels how professional organizations choose their leaders, and certain organizations such as credit unions or some retirement funds or mutual stock funds choose their representative Boards. In this plan nominations are solicited via an announcement in the membership magazine. A gating mechanism such as signature requirement of a reasonable number of members might be applicable. At the close of the nomination period profiles of nominees would be published in the magazine, and a voting card provided for all member's copies. Alternately the ballot and descriptions could be mailed under separate cover. This system would allow for B of A seats to have staggered terms. It would als provide all members with a direct voice in the governing of the membership services. A slight drawback is the minimal added cost of ballot preparation, mailing and tabulation. Method Two Grass Roots -------------------------------------- Since many of the membership services affect club members a second alternative would be to elect B of A members through the clubs. Each club would poll their own membership. Club votes could be equal, or weighted by club size (clubs would have to either declare members names at voting time, this would serve as a means to validate club membership for club-only national competion purposes, alternatively each club could be assessed a nominal per-member fee, this would provide revenue and deter clubs from bloating membership lists to gain influence). All clubs could either vote for the same slate of nationwide candidates, or regional representatives could be chosen based on equally apportioned districts. In addition "at large" members could be elected via a direct mailing to provide representation to people who don't participate in clubs, by the clubs, as above, or at a "congress" held at the national conference. Such a congress could be comprised of a representative from each club that paid per-member fees (a minimum club size could be set) and in addition to (or instead of) electing at large members could also provide direct feedback to and ratification of B of A policy. The advantages of this method are several. It could provide revenue to the AHA, create a direct link between clubs and regional representatives, and create a broad grass roots representation by effectively making all club members AHA members. Drawbacks to this method are that it would not provide Zymurgy subscribers (ie. current "members") with a means of representation unless they also particpated in a local club. Additionally it would likely require a newsletter distributed to clubs for them to incorporate in their newsletters as a means of feedback to members. Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalts --Message_Part_SYNC4241415D35-- --Next_Part_SYNC4241415D35--