Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9602Re: [uk_jugglers] Re: The possible dangers of a BJC 'advisory' body

Expand Messages
  • dave booth
    Mar 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      What Martin says really does make probably the most sense I have read on this debate to date.One thing which would make life much simpler would be to have a  list of prospective venues lined up where the event could DEFINATELY take place.This could be a venue already used or somewhere completely new. If at the bjc meeting it could be said that venues at xyz were able to host and who would be interested I an sure it would get more response.Take this year as an example.Mini asked me about the possibilities for Manchester.Whilst my organisational skills arer good I would not know where to start at looking for a venue.If it had been said that the venue was at X in Manchester and would I be interested in organising things it could have been different.Get a list of venues sorted out and the rest falls into place.I knpw getting the venues is probably the hardest part but get it done first.In these times of financial hardship I am sure that more venues would
      be interested.Dont just look ahead to next year,get venues to show a committed interest say up to 5 years ahead. Easy to say but probably a bitch to do,, Oh and one other thing just remember that the jugglers in this country are a family....you can choose your friends but not your family..Rambling finished...Good luck.

      --- On Sat, 28/2/09, martinkingsheard <mad@...> wrote:

      From: martinkingsheard <mad@...>
      Subject: [uk_jugglers] Re: The possible dangers of a BJC 'advisory' body
      To: uk_jugglers@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Saturday, 28 February, 2009, 11:40 PM






      --- In uk_jugglers@ yahoogroups. com, "Rob Thorburn" <zencat@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In uk_jugglers@ yahoogroups. com, <people> wrote:
      > >
      > > lots of stuff
      >
      >
      > I think an AB is a good idea.
      >

      Ok i've read a lot of this thread with interest and feel ready to give
      my input as someone with experience as an organiser of BJC'07,
      involvement in running two other BJC's and several one dayer's.

      Given discussions at the last few years BJC Meetings and being as
      people also clearly seem to struggle with the commitment and knowledge
      needed in order to run a national convention, i can't help feeling
      things NEED to change. There is also a (very real) consideration that
      people who have previously run BJC's fall into one of three categories:
      1) They are still around and offering their expertise to future BJC's
      through advice, volunteering, the infamous 'box of shite' and the
      currently slightly more co-ordinated BJC Wiki
      2) They are still around but want to have nothing more to do with
      running BJC's because the first time round was so stressful and
      potentially damaging to their mental health that the mere word
      'convention' brings them out in a cold sweat. (I find this of
      particular concern)
      3)They've fucked off completely

      I personally feel that if we are to ensure the future of a National
      Convention and provide a legacy for future BJC's and ensure that BJC
      organisers end up in category 1 above and not 2 or 3 - we can't
      possibly continue with the 'organisation' we have had for the last 20
      years.

      An offical advisory body would, i feel be a welcome addition. There
      has been a shit load of work (and funding) gone into leaving a legacy
      in the form of the BJC wiki but it is clearly not enough and the
      feeling that the BJC will remain a wonderful anarchy in terms of
      organisation is, i feel, short sighted. There are some faces out there
      with huge amounts of experience and, unless we formalise that in some
      way, i can't help feeling we are in danger of losing the BJC altogether.

      People keep saying that the joy of the BJC is that a different group
      take it on each year, but we are running out of willing groups to take
      on the mantle. With a clear structure of support i think more groups
      would be prepared to start planning for future BJC's.

      The advisory group is already there - i say let's formalise it and see
      what happens - the very fact this has been an issue, not only
      discussed heavily here, but also in recent AGM's, suggest that an
      advisory group and perhaps an even more formal BJC organisation
      should be given serious consideration.

      Whether future BJC organisers wish to ignore the advice of such a
      group is then up to them, but i seriously doubt they would.

      I'm actually not sure why this is even still being debated - most
      people on here seem willing to formalise their support for the BJC so
      let's get on with it.

      Marty



















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 42 messages in this topic