phoebe ayers wrote:
> Yes. Let me be extremely clear: this committee would not organize
> Wikimania. Full stop. That is, and has always been, the job of the
> local team that gets appointed to run the bid.
>
> What Harel is saying that there isn't a formal point of contact within
> the WMF, which is true. Yes, every person who has been named in this
> thread so far has worked on Wikimania in the past, and/or has a
> specific area of expertise. What a *committee* would be good for is
> making sure that all of these connections are made. For instance, Kul
> works on sponsorships. He is one direct point of contact within WMF
> for Wikimania-related funding issues. But he doesn't -- shouldn't --
> answer all of your questions about Wikimania. Conversely, Delphine,
> me, Samuel, and a bunch of other people know the history of Wikimania
> and roughly what is going on -- but I don't think any of us want to
> keep volunteering to be on the organization committee year after year.
> And if Delphine or I are unavailable for some reason, that shouldn't
> mean the local team can't get their questions answered. Having a group
> rather than just one or two people makes it more failsafe.
>
> So yes, keeping a general eye on progress is what I would go for here.
> The "actions" of the committee would only consist in that -- getting
> reports, making sure questions are answered. All other organizational
> actions -- the ones that Moushira are fondly remembering ;) -- would
> be done by the local team, as ever.
Speaking in general support for this proposal, I too think that it's
important for the organization of particular Wikimanias to remain with
the local community. Pulling together the documentation and the
planning guide will be an important ongoing task for this group, but the
committee should be able to draw on a variety of experiences as and when
necessity arises, and local committees discover a deficiency. For this
year it was important that Austin was able to step in when it was
discovered that registration was not being organized. It's one thing to
respond when a local groip asks for help, but it's equally important to
be aware that lack of experience may mean that those local groups may
not know they're in trouble until it's too late. Thus, the planning
guide should also include a timeline for when things must be done. If
registration needs to be open two months before the event, and has an
impact on the ability of attendees to obtain visas, the committee needs
to be in a position to act quickly when things are not being done.
Harel said:
> I'm more confident, thought, that we're missing one or more "formal"
> "one-stop-shop" points of contact, people who can answer us in an
> on-going and interactive manner not only based on their accumulated
> experience, but rather with full authority about their answers.
The problem with that approach is that the committee may not be familiar
with local circumstances, and different committee members may be the
best ones to ask depending on the nature of the problem. No committee
could have come up with the kind of excellent attendee's party that we
experienced in Alexandria, or could have come up with the museum venue
that we had in Boston. Harel's suggestion carries the risk of undue
dependance on the committee or WMF staff.
When the selection committee chooses a site it is expressing a degree of
confidence that the local group will be able to carry through with its
mandate. If it has no confidence in any of the applicants it is free to
reject them all, though the consequences of that would be uncertain. By
the time of its decision it should also be aware of potential
difficulties where additional help may be needed.
Ray