015-10-06 9:12 GMT+02:00 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com:
But will there be fewer losers and less wasted effort under the continental rotation system?
IMHO yes. It is better to be 100% sure that a location WILL be chosen for a particular event, instead of saying "well, we're bidding, so for now we will book the place, and then we may confirm in $number months". We also have to take into account that also venues have managements, and a certain degree of certainty surely helps to lower the costs: Economics teach that uncertainty is a cost, and every cost is to be paid by the last link of the chain, which is the attendee.
Also, I want to make a direct reference to the Manila 2016 Committee: if I have to think how should they feel right now after the 2016 bid procedure, I'd put my money on the "pissed-off-as-a-venomous-snake" option. And they have good reasons to be that pissed off, because surely they put lots of efforts in it... and then all disappeared, like magic.
I myself am kinda in a same position (I probably have to tell someone that I have to cancel an event I was actually pushing hard to realise, after three months of efforts and many changes to the schedule), so I totally feel for them. And Iolanda too, which is on the "winning" side of the 2016 bid procedure, knows it, this is why she explicitly said that line about "no more losers, more concerting". Because such a delusion may undermine your "faith" in the movement, and let you do less, instead of more for it - and with good reasons. I'd totally, totally understand such a decision.
In the end, this change IS about not wasting someone's efforts. I am most of the time in favour of free competition, but free competition sometimes doesn't allow for a "soft" conclusion, which in our case would be the best solution not to alienate people who care and are willing to work. See Gnangarra message for an example.