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.
I don't have any problem with the bidding process either. In business
when a construction project is up for bids, anyone who wants to have a
reasonable chance of winning will have to show that he can do his
homework. Bidders for the Olympics put a tremendous amount of money and
energy into preparing their bids without any guarantee of return. If
they suggested to their potential sponsors that winniing the bid was a
sure thing that would be deceptive.
The shortlisted bids seemed to have been very strong, and three of them
had to lose.
I don't think that it helps the transparency of the process when someone
like Jimbo begins by supporting a bid before the bidding has seriously
started. It's the kind of prejudicial comment that tells everyone else
to give up before they even try. It casts doubt on whether he believes
that the community has enough maturity to make good choices.
An effective self-governing community requires a high level of trust,
especially when it errs in its decisions. As time goes on the Gods need
to remember that there are more and more people with a long term
investment of time and commitment, and that extended commitment is not
consistent with acting stupidly. Intervention from on high should be
limited to situations where the community has gone seriously off track
from its fundamental principles.
Ec