9602Re: [uk_jugglers] Re: The possible dangers of a BJC 'advisory' body
- Mar 1, 2009What 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
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
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
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.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>