On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:21 AM,
<wikimania-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:
Sure. I'm totally not going to try to rail-road
this discussion (or
maybe it should be on-wiki?) by announcing a Jury when we're not sure
how we'll proceed. :-)
J.
--
James D. Forrester
jdforrester(a)wikimedia.org | jdforrester(a)gmail.com
[[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
There were some useful responses to James' initial message, but I think the
end result (through nobody's intention) was to get us off track from
selecting a jury for 2013. There are a number of groups working on bids
[1]; I think it would be a good thing to get a jury announced so they (we?
[2]) can begin laying out the process and guiding toward a decision.
This is not intended to dismiss the important "meta issue" about how
locations are selected. I agree with what has been said, that it is too
late to impose some sort of rotation system for the 2013 process; but I do
think it's an idea well worth some deeper consideration. I think that
having an active jury would be beneficial to arriving at a well-considered
decision on that, so I really don't see a conflict here.
I'm hoping to hear from some other folks here: should we encourage James F.
to resume his planned course, and select/announce a jury ASAP, without
prejudice toward the question of whether a rotation system is implemented
after 2013?
Jan-Bart? Perhaps a plate of stroopwafels will help move the discussion
forward?
-Pete
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013_bids
[2] I have thrown my name in the ring and would like to have a decision
soon, since it will affect how I spend my next few months.