We can do a better job with this procedurally, but honestly, there is
only one winner in such a situation. It is ultimately a
winner-take-all competition. To the extent this runs counter to the
community culture of wikilove, I don't there is an alternative.
On 9/28/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/09/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
The procedure as it is evidently needs work,
since other bidders (e.g.
London) are disappointed at their hard work being pretty much wasted.
The current system seems to ensure a lot of volunteer time and effort
being futile. This is damaging to the project.
The problem is that either we make a choice based on three or four
groups who've invested a lot of effort - which guarantees wasting a
fair lump of effort - or we make a choice before the detailed work has
been done, which would mean we save the legwork of the other teams
*but* we make a decision based on very little evidence. And if it then
turns out that the really really really optomistic bid for Gothab
isn't going to work once we start scaring up sponsorship etc, it's a
bit late to select an alternative...
It strikes me that any competitive bidding process, where the actual
work is devolved to a largely unknown local community, is going to
require a degree of wasted effort as all communities bidding try to
demonstrate they can achieve the required level. It's not ideal, but
neither is it simple ineptitude... it's necessary.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com
727-231-0101