[Foundation-l] Taipei chosen to host Wikimania 2007

[SJ]

On 9/29/06, Gatto Nero <gattonero at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2006/9/29, Gianluigi Gamba <gigamb at tin.it>:
> > Gatto Nero, I understand your disappointment, but
> >
> > * disappointing 7 teams out of 8 was unavoidable;
> > * the jury decided legitimately taking into account all the available
> > information they had - they have the right and the duty to consider
> > geo-political strategies for better achieving the goals of the Foundation.
> > And I might be wrong, bringing access to the free knowledge where such free
> > knowledge is somehow obstacled is one of them.
> >
> > suspicious innuendos about how the decision has been taken aren't of any
> > help for anyone.
>
> 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=435116#Local_sponsorship_opportunities
> )
> Why then include Taipei and exclude the other? On which basis?

I don't recall any bid including signed sponsorship contracts; so in every case
sponsorship was in some way "not fully secure".   Sponsorship was also only
one of many factors in the decisions (and conspiracy theories aside,
it never seemed
like the most important one).

> Should we deny that sj said Taipei was chosen 'cause "in the end they
> had the most surplus sponsorship, in fact"?

Out of context.  Taipei was not chosen "because" of sponsorship, at
least that was not the
deciding factor for me, though (see above) that was one of the factors
considered
for every bid.

The above quote (I did not say 'because') was in response to the claim
that Turin had full sponsorship, unlike other bids; when in fact it
was not the only bid with full sponsorship (and in some ways that bid
had less sponsorship than Taipei's; cf. breakfasts).  Again, beyond
noting the bids for which all major costs were covered, the specifics
of sponsorship amount or surplus was not a deciding factor in the
discussion.

> Should we deny that this decision caused a rift and quite a fight
> between the components of the jury?

It's funny, it caused a rift a day and a half after the decision,
after a lot of emotional comments from the community; it did not
during the jury discussion.

-- SJ