This has been going on for three days, yet not one person involved in this decision has take a moment to reachout personally to the people who worked on bids, They have tabled justifications on list discussions, they have changed the status of Meta pages but not once have they given anyone the courtesy of owning the mistakes that have caused this, not even the WMF has made any personal attempt to help reconcile the damage at a more personal level..
my month ahead;
- in three hours a meeting with a bid sponsor - in 2 days a workshop with GLAM commencement of a new project that will include 100,000+ image donation - in 5 days WMAU AGM where no doubt these events will be a topic of discussion - in 15 days on 21st & 22nd I'll giving presentations at a national GLAM conference about working with us and about we have already started
I do all of this and a lot more as a volunteer not a paid employee, 3 days ago my perception in the openness, honesty and integrity of the projects took a big hit, so as hollow as it'll be now it'd still be nice to think that the people involved in this have the courage to acknowledge & own their failures in the way the changes evolved and were communicated.
As a foot note I contacted the WMF three days ago asking for information and an apology then that I could take to those outside our community who have also put time, effort and resources into the bid, those email havent even been acknowledge as being received.
It's indeed a pity that things were not announced sooner and better, but the whole point of the new system is to decide earlier and waste less volunteer time/nerves. If we dislike having losers, let's design a system where there are no losers instead of asking that other people be the losers. (See Iolanda's message.)
Nemo
But will there be fewer losers and less wasted effort under the continental rotation system? Under the set continent rotation system it won't be possible to bid one year, learn some lessons and bid the following year. You might get some overlap between bid teams three years apart, but I wouldn't plan on it. If we rotate by distance then an unsuccessful bid team would often have the option of bidding again the following year.
Regards
Jonathan
On 6 Oct 2015, at 07:06, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
It's indeed a pity that things were not announced sooner and better, but the whole point of the new system is to decide earlier and waste less volunteer time/nerves. If we dislike having losers, let's design a system where there are no losers instead of asking that other people be the losers. (See Iolanda's message.)
Nemo
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
015-10-06 9:12 GMT+02:00 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com:
But will there be fewer losers and less wasted effort under the continental rotation system?
IMHO yes. It is better to be 100% sure that a location WILL be chosen for a particular event, instead of saying "well, we're bidding, so for now we will book the place, and then we may confirm in $number months". We also have to take into account that also venues have managements, and a certain degree of certainty surely helps to lower the costs: Economics teach that uncertainty is a cost, and every cost is to be paid by the last link of the chain, which is the attendee.
Also, I want to make a direct reference to the Manila 2016 Committee: if I have to think how should they feel right now after the 2016 bid procedure, I'd put my money on the "pissed-off-as-a-venomous-snake" option. And they have good reasons to be that pissed off, because surely they put lots of efforts in it... and then all disappeared, like magic.
I myself am kinda in a same position (I probably have to tell someone that I have to cancel an event I was actually pushing hard to realise, after three months of efforts and many changes to the schedule), so I totally feel for them. And Iolanda too, which is on the "winning" side of the 2016 bid procedure, knows it, this is why she explicitly said that line about "no more losers, more concerting". Because such a delusion may undermine your "faith" in the movement, and let you do less, instead of more for it - and with good reasons. I'd totally, totally understand such a decision.
In the end, this change IS about not wasting someone's efforts. I am most of the time in favour of free competition, but free competition sometimes doesn't allow for a "soft" conclusion, which in our case would be the best solution not to alienate people who care and are willing to work. See Gnangarra message for an example.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Luca Martinelli martinelliluca@gmail.com wrote:
015-10-06 9:12 GMT+02:00 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com:
Also, I want to make a direct reference to the Manila 2016 Committee: if I have to think how should they feel right now after the 2016 bid procedure, I'd put my money on the "pissed-off-as-a-venomous-snake" option. And they have good reasons to be that pissed off, because surely they put lots of efforts in it... and then all disappeared, like magic.
You are not far off the mark ;)
Personally (and not speaking on behalf of the rest of the Manila team), I wouldn't mind, in principle, that the procedures for selecting the Wikimania host is going to be changed for some welcome improvements. (Although I have very strong reservations with the details, most of which were aired by Josh before me).
However, if this was the intention all along, I hope that Ellie did not have to tell Josh to tell the Manila team to restart our bid. At the time we made our first bid, most of the prospective suppliers or partners said that they would be available July-August 2016 and were even more than ready to send us a contract on the spot (we had to explain that we're merely putting a bid so we said that would have to wait). They are still available and would be willing to pencil-book us should we win the 2017 bid. On my part (and, I would surmise, Josh's), the time we've spent privately reworking our bid could have been better spent in other tasks like chapter/community work in Wikimedia Philippines.
If the changes to the procedure would have been effective for the 2018 bids, I would understand. However, we were never informed or warned that changes were afoot, and up to this point, all of us---the Manila, Bali and Perth bid teams---have started working on our bids in good faith, because we never knew that the current process would be rescinded. And to make things worse, the "winning" city for 2017 was not even one of the cities which have put up a bid for 2017. This is probably one of the most inconsiderate things I've ever experienced in my Wiki-life, and you cannot blame me if we all felt betrayed and misled, despite and in spite of the reassurances that have been said up to this point.
Now, how would I get ever back the time and effort I lost in reworking on our planned 2017 bid?
wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org