I hope I get to go... it's not everyday a minor from the United States gets to go to Taipei. On 9/24/06, THD <theodoranian(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 9/25/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote: Sorry, it is very hard to ignore the differences between Wikimania and events like the Olympic Games. Right, but the bidding teams were encouraged to look for *local* sponsors. Perhaps it would be better to explicitly forbid the teams to do that before the city is chosen: The Wikimedia Foundation can look for global sponsors long before the selection, and ask local sponsors afterwards, together with the bidding team. Just an idea to lessen the amount of work and minimize the possible disappointments. Arne

Congratulations to the Taipei team!. I would love to attend Wikimania 2007 :), when can we work on Invitation letters for those of us who need to get a VISA? (I just got my brand new 'biometric' Venezuelan passport :) ). And now to work my butt off to save around 5k$ (Airfare is 3k$!). Damian Finol

If you mean here that we should now already pick Turin to "do" wikimania 2008, I think that would be inappropriate. There are a lot of other cities working on a bid right now, and it would be extremely unfair to change the rules now and don't give others the chance to make their bid up, which might be better, as you don't know what you can expect. Please let's just follow the procedure as stated by the " picking committee" (how should I call them? ;-) ) before and let people prepare their bid, and pick one about november, december. If you meant otherwise, please forgive my lack of english :-) Lodewijk 2006/9/28, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>om>:

it costs a lot of time yes. That's for sure. but on the other hand you can select the best city this way. You can not prospect how good the other bids will be when you don't give them the chance to proof themselves. But you can go in between. you can do the selection on an earlier point in the selection procedure, and make the demands smaller. Them you can make a selection earlier in the process of preperation, and less time will be "lost". But if you want another procedure, make one, and don't skip the procedure and just choose one. Because next year you will then have an even huger problem, as there will be no bidding candidates which are somehow experienced, and you will have a lot of cities bidding which don't have to be good. lodewijk 2006/9/28, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:

And forbidding someone to do work that (s)he wants to do is even more demotivating :( 2006/9/28, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:

I don't see how this can be avoided, if we want the sort of high quality bids we saw for 2007. The only reason people pushed so hard for such great results was because they knew they were in competition and had a chance of losing. If we focus on minimizing the amount of wasted effort then we will end up minmizing the quality of the bids. I don't see any reason to scrap the system which brought us the Turin and Tapei bids without any better alternative. Birgitte SB --- David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

On 28/09/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

On 9/29/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't think it runs counter to wikilove, but perhaps we need to make it clearer to people that, yes, they may spend weeks on preparing a bid that will not be accepted. And as has been pointed out time and again, Wikimania cannot, should not and will not be the only Wikimedia event happening in a single year. Organizing events is very much within the domain of chapters, and we have a UK chapter. Is there a reason some of the lessons from preparing the bid could not be used to prepare a more focused wiki event in the UK? (*draws wiki youth camp idea from hat*) -- Peace & Love, Erik Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

James Hare wrote: [fixed top posting] Wikimania Europe, Asia, America perhaps? -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

Andrew Gray wrote: 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

oscar wrote: I have no problem with these questions. It is nevertheless important, assuming that Torino is still interested for 2008, that other cities have the opportunity to make bids that will be considered seriously. Cities interested for 2008 that were either undinterested or unenthusiastic about 2007 could still present something for 2008. To be sure the existing Torino bid will establish a tough standard to beat, but that should not stop others from trying. As to how long we can wake, I believe that the decision should be made relatively soon. At the very minimum the winners for 2008 should have time to prepare a presentation to the delegates in Taipei inviting them to their city the following year, and generating enthusiasm. For 2009 and later we need to solidify our processes and timetable for selecting the city. Perhaps the candidates for 2009 can be known in time for Taipei so that people there can start informally expressing their opinion. The final decison must remain with a limited group that is capable of evaluating bids objectively. Ec

On 29/09/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote: I would be very interested in attending a conference in Torino, certainly, if the details are broadly the same as they were before - it's accessible enough from most of Europe that we could get a lot of attendees for whom Taipei is simply not a possibility, and the European community as a whole is sufficiently diverse and active that it seems the most likely to be able to support a regional conference. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Perhaps you do not realize this, but you are listed as being on the jury. This is probably what led to such confusion regarding you role in the selection. This is the only mention I could find on the composition of the jury. In all fairness I stopped looking when I found this assuming it was correct. "Original jury comprises of the members of the Board : Angela, Anthere, Jimmy Wales, Michael Davis, Tim Shell, to which will be added the new Board member elected in September to replace Angela, and also the core organisation team of Wikimania 2006: Phoebe Ayers, Austin Hair, Samuel Klein and Delphine Ménard. Other members are: Andrew Lih. Other members may be added later." [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2007/Bids#Shortlist] Birgitte SB --- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

On Thu, September 28, 2006 12:07, David Gerard wrote: and Coming a little late to this discussion, could I (as one of the leads on the London bid) say that (a) I don't see the need for a bidding process as at all 'damaging' nor, other than the first few hours after the decision was announced am I that disappointed. Yes, the work is 'wasted' by some views, but much of it will get recycled into other projects (the schools outreach and community outreach programmes we had been planning are still likely to go ahead in some form, for instance) and if you think we were depressed be glad you weren't Paris at the latest declaration of the city to host the Summer Olympics in 2012! So far as I am concerned I am happy that Taipei will be hosting in 2007 and wish them well. One thing I would definitely say though is that this process did point up a few things that need sorting before the next city is chosen. 1. Travel costs; should be researched centrally by WMF or someone independent from all the bids. It was clear that this caused great friction in this year's bids as Taipei - by their own admission - used this year's prices without taxes and surcharges even though actual-date flight information and charges were available and used by other bids. This meant that the bids information was clearly biased and inconsistent and could mislead the analysts. 2. What is the *point* of Wikimania? Is it just for editors of Wikimedia projects? Is it for technical/academic purposes? Is is (as we in London had planned) a way to expand the 'reach' and use of the Wikimedia projects to the wider population and not just those already in the FLOSS/wiki sphere? 3. Extending from both of these points is that of who the attendees are; the demographics of our editors and how much disposable income they have to be able to fly around the world. In essence this is an old-fashioned network routing calculation as whilst some people may be expensed to attend Wikimania (the board, for example, and some presenters) most attendees aren't and if we aim for 'free and open source' then we should also aim for 'cheap and easy travel' too. 4. A last thought on location is the one of language and locality. The nationality of the host location and its 'default language' don't have that much effect on the conference itself - our working language is english, after all - but they do on the attendees ability to travel in-country and enjoy anything the location might offer outwith the conference. Could I also suggest that we should be seeking an 'independence of view' from all people concerned with deciding on a venue or employees of same. Brad's support for Torino during the selection period, and Jimbo's recent comment here are, to my mind, very out of place and could easily suggest to many that there is pressure being brought on them. I was dishearted, indeed, to see that people were making suppositions about different candidate cities external to the information those cities made available about their offerings and that - if geographical considerations are to form a part of the decision-makiong process - they need to be clarified in advance and applied equally. Alison Wheeler

Alison Wheeler wrote: Allow me to clarify that I did not vote in this years selection process, and have no intention of voting in next years. My comment about Torino was based on two things: the closeness of the competition this year, and my own love of visiting Italy in the summer, which I don't get to do very often. It was intended as a personal remark only... to cheer up the Italians. :) --Jimbo

Hoi, When people want Wikimania happening in 2007 in their town and they do their best to achieve this, they do this on the basis of competition. They compete. They either win or lose as there is only one place where Wikimania will happen. This is the way of things, considering things to be different is madness. In Taipei we will have a completely different event from the event in Frankfurt and Boston. Each time we learned new things and the resulting offers for hosting were different as a consequence. Not allowing for this by saying in advance that Turin does not have to do "the work" again is imho stupid. In order for Turin to be a competitor next year, they have to analyse what went wrong; was it their offer, their presentation sheer bad luck? Trying for Wikimania is without guarantees, all competing cities had a credible offer. Only one could be chosen. Picking out Turin for next year is bad business, it is an insult to the other cities that made an offer and it is a message to other cities that they should not bother for 2008 because it is likely to be Turin. Turin may compete again, sure, but it has to compete on an equal footing. If Almere 2008 is to be a credible option, there cannot be a prefered city for 2008. It is morally wrong. Thanks, GerardM NB Still living in Almere On 9/29/06, oscar <oscar.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi, Both Turin and Almere are in Europe. Both should be allowed to enter the 2008 competition. Rio de Janeiro or Johannesburg or Adelaide or Dullsville should be allowed to enter the 2008 competition. There is NO reason why they should not be allowed to compete on equal footing. When there are things about the 2007 competition that were problematic, they should be part of the learning process that may be happening before the competition for Wikimania 2008 starts. Wikimania 2007 will be in Taipei. Thanks, GerardM On 9/29/06, Gatto Nero <gattonero(a)gmail.com> wrote:

2006/9/29, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>: Oh, I forgot: we all noticed that Wikimania 2007 will be hold in Taipei. I'm just saying that this was not a fair choose, just 'till someone will be able to bring me factual and believable reasons for this. Gatto Nero

2006/9/29, Gianluigi Gamba <gigamb(a)tin.it>it>: Oh Paginazero, per favore: la giuria ha deciso legittimamente? Dear Paginazero, this politically-correctness is starting to disgust me. I really am not so able to lie. My lie-ability level is really low, I can't stand lies over lies. I'm sorry. Should we deny that Taipei has been shortlisted with no secure sponsorship at all? (Just read what their bid said about sponsor at the time of the shortlisting decision: "The bidding team has contacted several potential sponsors. Some of them have shown great interest in sponsoring Wikimania and covering the core expenses in total on venue, accommodation, and catering. If Taipei is selected as the host city for Wikimania 2007, the detailed sponsorship arrangement will be finalized. According to our conservative estimation, local sponsorship will be no less than NT$1,500,000 (US$45,600+)." http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimania_2007/Taipei&oldid… ) Why then include Taipei and exclude the other? On which basis? Should we deny that a bid has been choosen that copied even the idea of a logo from the Torino's bid? Even. Should we deny that sj said Taipei was chosen 'cause "in the end they had the most surplus sponsorship, in fact"? Should we deny that this decision caused a rift and quite a fight between the components of the jury? Who all this denying should be of any help? The community, not even heard about what they thought about all this bid (and I talked with someone, lot of them preferred Torino, others - minus, but my memory could by fallacious - Alexandria, others - more minus - London)? Jimbo, or other WMF members? Or sj, maybe? I prefer not to lie, and not to deny. I think is more useful find WHY and HOW all this could have been happened. And that's what I'd like to be done, more than talking about "maybe something in Torino in 2008, but wait - in 2008 there's Australia so... whatever, bye Turin, welcome Sidney". Gatto Nero (I started working on wiki full of idealistic thoughts of collaboration, correctness, and of working for a bigger aim. I'm really sick at seeing how much economic interests and politic there is here. Really sick.)

2006/9/29, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com>om>: That's really funny, 'cause noone has been able to bring some believable reason for this choice. So: *Taipei has not been choosen cause it was in Asia *Taipei has not been choosen cause it had some strange sponsorship Then, why has Taipei been choosen? For the funny weather in summer, rain season? Context: set 25 02:19:35 metasj the result this year was uncertain even in the last days; and the discussion was about the quality of each aspect of the bids set 25 02:19:54 metasj taipei also managed to get everything paid for, with institutional support... set 25 02:20:05 AlisonW so did we set 25 02:20:11 AlisonW so did Torino set 25 02:20:12 metasj (in the end they had the most surplus sponsorship, in fact) Excuse me sir, it caused a rift THE NIGHT the decision was made. Or are you saying that the decision has been took before september 25? Gatto Nero

--- Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Excuse me Now a positive answer to one of those questions does *not* change that Taipei was chosen in good faith. The http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2006/9/30, THD <theodoranian(a)gmail.com>om>: How can we say...? Maybe the rectangular logo with a black band on the bottom, the logo of wikimania on the left, the choose to write "Wikimania2007Taipei" just like "Wikimania2007Torino" (and you were not obliged to write it in that way: you could write "Taipei 2007" and "Wikimania" in a lot of different way). Surely you have not copied the idea of different photos combined, yes, but all this copying thing is so evident... I'm not saying that you were not allowed to copy or to take inspiration from the other bids. I just find it sad to make it in this way. Personally, knowing that there were a bid with a logo sooooo strangely similar to mine (that put it on the page before of me), I had tried to work more and invent a logo totally different from the other. It's not that difficult to understand. Gatto Nero

Please... Why are we having these fights? Taipei has been chosen now, and we can i think do two things: Accept that or not. If we do the second, we will be fighting over this for weeks, months and maybe longer. I think Taipei made a good bid, and I am not in the position to decide whether it was the best. It has been chosen, please let the bidding team now proove that their bid was good indeed (we will never know a comparison with Turin or London or Alexandria) Please stop fighting over who copied something from someone else. It is NO use! In wiki it is *good* to copy the good things right? As long as it is the idea of improoving your bid, it is OK imho. The bid it is copied from won't be less good by that. The idea is not to *win* with your bid, but the idea should be to let the jury offer as much as possible material to be able to make a fair choise for the best bid. So please leave the harass behind, and let the Taipei people do their job, let them work their bid out to a real wikimania. Please let's all hope it will be a great conference, and don't make it harder for them with all these fights. Greetings, Lodewijk 2006/9/30, Alison Wheeler <wikimedia(a)alisonwheeler.com>om>:

--- David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: I intially disagreed with you, david, but now I am coming around to your way of thinking. Everyone is a volunteer doing there best in this. I do not doubt that this is true. But I am beginning to think a competitive process requires a higher level of professionalism than can be provided by volunteers doing their best. Not that I think people should continue fighting over the Wikimania 2007 selection. But we should not stop talking about this process. We should start talking about how future Wikimania's should be selected. Perhaps the first task is to really define the relationship between Wikimania and Wikimedia. Is it dealt with through a commitee? Are there any Board Resolutions that pertain to Wikimania? What exactly is the connection? Birgitte SB __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

One thing we could do is have the bidding process, then determine which one would be 2008, 2009, etc, or if a certain place will be chosen at all. That way, all effort is utilized. On 10/1/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, September 30, 2006 21:20, effe iets anders wrote: I'm sorry, Lodewijk, but did you actually read my post? I quote ... Please don't see "fights" where none exist! Alison Wheeler

--- Gatto Nero <gattonero(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't see a problem with not being able to publicly name a sponser. I am sure they were aware that winning the bid was based on this and if it had not been posted publically afterwards the win should have beeen revoked. Strange flight costs do sound like a problem, but I don't know what mean by this. Have they changed their numbers after they won? Birgitte SB __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com