There is currently no BJC committee or other formal organisation - only the limited companies formed each year by the new team.
People have suggested that having a committee would be a good idea. In the business meeting in 2010 it was suggested that if people wanted a committee, they should bring concrete proposals to a future business meeting. In 2014 Jack Perkin presented BJAG.
There are heated opinions on this issue. This is an attempt to summarise the points of view. Emily has started off the summary, and she is not neutral on the issue (although she is trying to be as neutral as possible on this page!). If someone wants to edit this to help reflect the pro-committee side of things better, that would be appreciated. Please try your hardest to keep the page neutral. Opinionated stuff can go on the "discussion" page (see link at the very top) if you really must.
A Committee would be useful
- As each organising team is so separate, lessons learnt are lost from year to year and a committee could provide more continuity.
- A long-standing organisation could build up a history that would go over better with funders.
- A committee could provide services such as expertise on funding applications.
- A committee could help prevent problems such as at Norwich 2009 where the venue contract fell through.
A Committee would not be useful
- A committee would have no functional authority (since only people who are prepared to actually run an event can control what happens).
- A committee that attempted to exercise authority over a particular team would be off-putting to that team. Part of the incentive to run a BJC is "editorial control" over how that BJC runs.
- A committee with no authority would be an "advisory body" and not appreciably different from the existing situation, in which anyone interested and willing to help out, offers their services each year and the team use them or don't.