Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I just can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about 62,000$).
I wrote my last response on that few minutes ago: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Activity_Plan#5.2_Wikiconference_2013
"Hire a production company for half of this cost. It's really waste of donors money, for what we expect to be done by volunteers, or for a minimum costs. If every one who going to bid for Wikimania will spent this amount of money (and why them not? if UK can, why others not?), it's mean that for 4 places every year we are "spending" more than 260,000$ only for the bid!!!. --217.132.1.140 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)"
I really think the "Wikimania" groups need to speak about that. It's the first time a group/chapter spending such amount of money for bid, and it's open a door for next cities to do the same - with money which can uses to invest in Wikimania itself.
Itzik
Staffing is a very good thing to spend money on—while executing the conference. Spending $62,000 on staff for a bid would be worth the investment if bidding for Wikimania were anything like bidding for the Olympics, but it is not. The spirit of Wikimania is ultimately from its volunteer leadership, and if the Wikimedia UK volunteers cannot muster that spirit to run their own bid, they have no hope and no soul.
James
On Aug 25, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Itzik Edri wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I just can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about 62,000$).
I wrote my last response on that few minutes ago: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Activity_Plan#5.2_Wikiconference_2013
"Hire a production company for half of this cost. It's really waste of donors money, for what we expect to be done by volunteers, or for a minimum costs. If every one who going to bid for Wikimania will spent this amount of money (and why them not? if UK can, why others not?), it's mean that for 4 places every year we are "spending" more than 260,000$ only for the bid!!!. --217.132.1.140 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)"
I really think the "Wikimania" groups need to speak about that. It's the first time a group/chapter spending such amount of money for bid, and it's open a door for next cities to do the same - with money which can uses to invest in Wikimania itself.
Itzik
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
The problem is, that it takes someone to step forward and DO something.
Ed is not a Wikipedian per se, but he has donated a lot of time so far and the question is - do we want a half-assed volunteer attempt plagued by volunteers flaking out etc. Or do we want Wikimania.
If someone objects so strongly to paying people to organise a Wikimania bid then cool; but I'd suggest they have to commit to driving the bid instead :)
With that said; the budget is rather large and I am sure it will be discussed at the meeting tomorrow.
Tom
On 25 August 2012 20:32, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Staffing is a very good thing to spend money on—while executing the conference. Spending $62,000 on staff for a bid would be worth the investment if bidding for Wikimania were anything like bidding for the Olympics, but it is not. The spirit of Wikimania is ultimately from its volunteer leadership, and if the Wikimedia UK volunteers cannot muster that spirit to run their own bid, they have no hope and no soul.
James
On Aug 25, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Itzik Edri wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I just can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about 62,000$).
I wrote my last response on that few minutes ago:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Activity_Plan#5.2_Wikiconference_2013
"Hire a production company for half of this cost. It's really waste of donors money, for what we expect to be done by volunteers, or for a minimum costs. If every one who going to bid for Wikimania will spent this amount of money (and why them not? if UK can, why others not?), it's mean that for 4 places every year we are "spending" more than 260,000$ only for the bid!!!. --217.132.1.140 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)"
I really think the "Wikimania" groups need to speak about that. It's the first time a group/chapter spending such amount of money for bid, and it's open a door for next cities to do the same - with money which can uses to invest in Wikimania itself.
Itzik
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Please note that we're talking about a proposal here, not anything that has been set in stone at this point. WMUK is open to the UK bid team requesting reasonable funds to support a bid, but we have not yet agreed to provide any such funding.
Thanks, Mike
On 25 Aug 2012, at 20:32, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Staffing is a very good thing to spend money on—while executing the conference. Spending $62,000 on staff for a bid would be worth the investment if bidding for Wikimania were anything like bidding for the Olympics, but it is not. The spirit of Wikimania is ultimately from its volunteer leadership, and if the Wikimedia UK volunteers cannot muster that spirit to run their own bid, they have no hope and no soul.
James
On Aug 25, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Itzik Edri wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I just can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about 62,000$).
I wrote my last response on that few minutes ago: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Activity_Plan#5.2_Wikiconference_2013
"Hire a production company for half of this cost. It's really waste of donors money, for what we expect to be done by volunteers, or for a minimum costs. If every one who going to bid for Wikimania will spent this amount of money (and why them not? if UK can, why others not?), it's mean that for 4 places every year we are "spending" more than 260,000$ only for the bid!!!. --217.132.1.140 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)"
I really think the "Wikimania" groups need to speak about that. It's the first time a group/chapter spending such amount of money for bid, and it's open a door for next cities to do the same - with money which can uses to invest in Wikimania itself.
Itzik
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
I agree that it would be wrong for chapter money to go into Wikimania bids, especially as some bid teams have access to resources that others don't. However London lost the last bid against Hong Kong partly because it was deemed not to have "solid support from the chapter". Considering how much support there was from the chapter it would be difficult to see how the UK chapter could give more solid support without supplying paid staff time. So the logical response to the jury's decision http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2012-May/003491.html is to budget for more solid support from the chapter.
If the Jury had said that both bids were very good , but for 2013 it was really time for another Wikimania in the Far East then we'd be in a different situation.
WSC
On 25 August 2012 20:32, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Staffing is a very good thing to spend money on—while executing the conference. Spending $62,000 on staff for a bid would be worth the investment if bidding for Wikimania were anything like bidding for the Olympics, but it is not. The spirit of Wikimania is ultimately from its volunteer leadership, and if the Wikimedia UK volunteers cannot muster that spirit to run their own bid, they have no hope and no soul.
James
On Aug 25, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Itzik Edri wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I just can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about 62,000$).
I wrote my last response on that few minutes ago:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Activity_Plan#5.2_Wikiconference_2013
"Hire a production company for half of this cost. It's really waste of donors money, for what we expect to be done by volunteers, or for a minimum costs. If every one who going to bid for Wikimania will spent this amount of money (and why them not? if UK can, why others not?), it's mean that for 4 places every year we are "spending" more than 260,000$ only for the bid!!!. --217.132.1.140 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)"
I really think the "Wikimania" groups need to speak about that. It's the first time a group/chapter spending such amount of money for bid, and it's open a door for next cities to do the same - with money which can uses to invest in Wikimania itself.
Itzik
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Right, let me be quite blunt. This thread is not "undiplomatic", it's an attempt to meddle in the affairs of other chapters, which do not concern you. how would you have liked it if I was trashing the Haifa or DC bids before they were even anything as formal as bids?
As to "my opinion of WMUK has been tainted", let me again be very blunt. You have clearly not read the documents linked, or not understood what you were looking at. You are looking at suggestions. We are exploring a variety of options, none of which have been discussed or approved. Now, as WSC says, last year's bid failed partly because of insufficient support from the chapter, so this year, there is a *suggestion* in a *draft* budget to *earmark* *up to* £40k for the bid. That doesn't mean that £40k *will* be allocated, nor that, if it is allocated, the whole £40k will be spent. In fact, I think it's very unlikely we will find anything to spend that kind of money on in just the bidding stage, but that's why it's called a *draft*. You can't criticise the chapter for offering financial support when it was criticised last year for not providing financial support.
Now kindly keep your noses out of other people's business.
(I should probably point out that I'm not speaking on behalf of WMUK)
Thank you,
Harry Mitchell
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________ From: WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com To: Wikimania general list (open subscription) wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, 26 August 2012, 12:34 Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] UK budget plan for 2014 Wikimania bid
I agree that it would be wrong for chapter money to go into Wikimania bids, especially as some bid teams have access to resources that others don't. However London lost the last bid against Hong Kong partly because it was deemed not to have "solid support from the chapter". Considering how much support there was from the chapter it would be difficult to see how the UK chapter could give more solid support without supplying paid staff time. So the logical response to the jury's decision http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2012-May/003491.html%C2%A0i... to budget for more solid support from the chapter.
If the Jury had said that both bids were very good , but for 2013 it was really time for another Wikimania in the Far East then we'd be in a different situation.
WSC
On 25 August 2012 20:32, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Staffing is a very good thing to spend money on—while executing the conference. Spending $62,000 on staff for a bid would be worth the investment if bidding for Wikimania were anything like bidding for the Olympics, but it is not. The spirit of Wikimania is ultimately from its volunteer leadership, and if the Wikimedia UK volunteers cannot muster that spirit to run their own bid, they have no hope and no soul.
James
On Aug 25, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Itzik Edri wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I just can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about 62,000$).
I wrote my last response on that few minutes ago:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Activity_Plan#5.2_Wikiconference_2013
"Hire a production company for half of this cost. It's really waste of donors money, for what we expect to be done by volunteers, or for a minimum costs. If every one who going to bid for Wikimania will spent this amount of money (and why them not? if UK can, why others not?), it's mean that for 4 places every year we are "spending" more than 260,000$ only for the bid!!!. --217.132.1.140 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)"
I really think the "Wikimania" groups need to speak about that. It's the first time a group/chapter spending such amount of money for bid, and it's open a door for next cities to do the same - with money which can uses to invest in Wikimania itself.
Itzik
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On 26 August 2012 13:37, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
Right, let me be quite blunt. This thread is not "undiplomatic", it's an attempt to meddle in the affairs of other chapters, which do not concern you. how would you have liked it if I was trashing the Haifa or DC bids before they were even anything as formal as bids?
How is it not of concern to the rest of the movement how £40k of movement funds is spent?
Of course the wider community is entitled to comment on an individual chapter's decisions. But budgets are misleading things, if the support that WMUK gave to a London 2014 bid was in the form of grants for bid team members to attend Wikimania and a proportion of the event organiser's time then it might not be readily identifiable as Wikimania bid related expense.
If I may suggest a practical resolution here, perhaps the jury for 2013 could clarify what they meant when they criticised the London bid for not having strong support from the UK chapter. If they thought that there was something non-financial that was missing in the UK chapter's support for the London 2013 bid then now would be a good time to tell us all. Otherwise please can those who don't want chapters spending lots of money on Wikimania bids please communicate that publicly to the jury. There is little point criticising the UK chapter for responding so positively to feedback from the 2013 jury.
Ideally I'd like to see a level playing field for all serious bids, including giving active Wikimedians who are potential bidders grants to attend Wikimania. It might even be worth the WMF giving each shortlisted bid a few hundred dollars for incidental expenses. At the same time it would be best if we had a clear ruling from the Wikimania team that despite what they said re London 2013, where chapters have professional staff and their own budgets they should stand back, leave the bidding to volunteers and only involve themselves after a bid succeeds.
WSC
On 26 August 2012 14:01, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 August 2012 13:37, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
Right, let me be quite blunt. This thread is not "undiplomatic", it's an attempt to meddle in the affairs of other chapters, which do not concern you. how would you have liked it if I was trashing the Haifa or DC bids before they were even anything as formal as bids?
How is it not of concern to the rest of the movement how £40k of movement funds is spent?
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On Aug 26, 2012, at 11:46 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
If I may suggest a practical resolution here, perhaps the jury for 2013 could clarify what they meant when they criticised the London bid for not having strong support from the UK chapter. If they thought that there was something non-financial that was missing in the UK chapter's support for the London 2013 bid then now would be a good time to tell us all. Otherwise please can those who don't want chapters spending lots of money on Wikimania bids please communicate that publicly to the jury. There is little point criticising the UK chapter for responding so positively to feedback from the 2013 jury.
Indeed. The winning bid for Wikimania 2012 had no financial support. It wasn't even backed by a chapter; the chapter came later. What it did have though was the kind of people power necessary to execute a bid.
And even with people power, it's always good to hire some outside help to fill in the gaps. Many of us find it silly, though, to make that level of investment at the *bid* stage.
As for paying the Wikimania host committee... I will say I personally would have appreciated some kind of income because Wikimania, in its last couple of months, was literally a full time job, but I feel like my relationship with Wikimania would've changed if it had become a job and not this thing I was building from the ground up as a labor of love. When you pay people, their work is different than if they volunteer.
This gets back to the people power of Wikimania. You can hire all the professionals in the world. Over the past two days I checked the financial math on Wikimania and we spent $61,430 on conference staffing. The lady with the silly wig? We would've died without her. The two assistants she brought on who were even more experienced than she was? We needed them too. The registration company who helped us order the name badges and run the on-site registration? The hired hands who helped direct the flow of traffic and run the store? The sign language interpreters? (Our volunteer who knew sign language was not enough.) These are all people who help take a conference that was attended by over a thousand Wikimaniacs and 300 Tech@Staters and make it work.
But these professionals all take orders from the core team of Wikimedia volunteers, who are doing this not because they are paid to, but because they love Wikimania. And you have to love Wikimania, or the energy is just not there. I don't see it working any other way.
Ideally I'd like to see a level playing field for all serious bids, including giving active Wikimedians who are potential bidders grants to attend Wikimania. It might even be worth the WMF giving each shortlisted bid a few hundred dollars for incidental expenses. At the same time it would be best if we had a clear ruling from the Wikimania team that despite what they said re London 2013, where chapters have professional staff and their own budgets they should stand back, leave the bidding to volunteers and only involve themselves after a bid succeeds.
I mean the whole bidding process is broken, but I'm not getting into that just yet.
WSC
James, I completely agree with you. In fact, Ed Saperia is probably sick of hearing me say exactly that.
I disagree with assertions that the UK bid team doesn't have that, and with suggestions that WMUK is trying to substitute for this by throwing money around. Harry Mitchell
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________ From: James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com To: Wikimania general list (open subscription) wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, 26 August 2012, 17:00 Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] UK budget plan for 2014 Wikimania bid
On Aug 26, 2012, at 11:46 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
If I may suggest a practical resolution here, perhaps the jury for 2013 could clarify what they meant when they criticised the London bid for not having strong support from the UK chapter. If they thought that there was something non-financial that was missing in the UK chapter's support for the London 2013 bid then now would be a good time to tell us all. Otherwise please can those who don't want chapters spending lots of money on Wikimania bids please communicate that publicly to the jury. There is little point criticising the UK chapter for responding so positively to feedback from the 2013 jury.
Indeed. The winning bid for Wikimania 2012 had no financial support. It wasn't even backed by a chapter; the chapter came later. What it did have though was the kind of people power necessary to execute a bid.
And even with people power, it's always good to hire some outside help to fill in the gaps. Many of us find it silly, though, to make that level of investment at the *bid* stage.
As for paying the Wikimania host committee... I will say I personally would have appreciated some kind of income because Wikimania, in its last couple of months, was literally a full time job, but I feel like my relationship with Wikimania would've changed if it had become a job and not this thing I was building from the ground up as a labor of love. When you pay people, their work is different than if they volunteer.
This gets back to the people power of Wikimania. You can hire all the professionals in the world. Over the past two days I checked the financial math on Wikimania and we spent $61,430 on conference staffing. The lady with the silly wig? We would've died without her. The two assistants she brought on who were even more experienced than she was? We needed them too. The registration company who helped us order the name badges and run the on-site registration? The hired hands who helped direct the flow of traffic and run the store? The sign language interpreters? (Our volunteer who knew sign language was not enough.) These are all people who help take a conference that was attended by over a thousand Wikimaniacs and 300 Tech@Staters and make it work.
But these professionals all take orders from the core team of Wikimedia volunteers, who are doing this not because they are paid to, but because they love Wikimania. And you have to love Wikimania, or the energy is just not there. I don't see it working any other way.
Ideally I'd like to see a level playing field for all serious bids, including giving active Wikimedians who are potential bidders grants to attend Wikimania. It might even be worth the WMF giving each shortlisted bid a few hundred dollars for incidental expenses. At the same time it would be best if we had a clear ruling from the Wikimania team that despite what they said re London 2013, where chapters have professional staff and their own budgets they should stand back, leave the bidding to volunteers and only involve themselves after a bid succeeds.
I mean the whole bidding process is broken, but I'm not getting into that just yet.
WSC
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Harry,
That's exactly our problem in the movement - that it seem like everyone can do whatever he want. But it's no.
The money, even if only part of him coming from the fundraising - is movement money. And if Wikimedia Israel is spending money for nothing, this is not only my concern - but something that everyone in the movement need to care, if we want future for our movement.
This is not the place, and this is not the right place - and I'm not meaning that WMUK are spending money unwittingly or not in modestly, like we need to do - but this is happen in the movement, but unfortunately there is also a trend of uncontrolled swelling budget, within the chapters, and also within the WMF.
But this is not the issue, the issue is the future and the kind of Wikimania as a community project, and the balance of power between the third Chapter in his budget size and other volunteer groups that are supposed to compete in the bid. It's one thing (and ok) if the Chapter staff invest there time on a bid, but it's something else to spend that amount of resources. Even if at the end it will be half of it, or a quarter of it. Even five thousand pounds, this huge amount compared to what others have invested so far.
Itzik
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 3:37 PM, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
Right, let me be quite blunt. This thread is not "undiplomatic", it's an attempt to meddle in the affairs of other chapters, which do not concern you. how would you have liked it if I was trashing the Haifa or DC bids before they were even anything as formal as bids?
As to "my opinion of WMUK has been tainted", let me again be very blunt. You have clearly not read the documents linked, or not understood what you were looking at. You are looking at suggestions. We are exploring a variety of options, none of which have been discussed or approved. Now, as WSC says, last year's bid failed partly because of insufficient support from the chapter, so this year, there is a *suggestion* in a *draft* budget to *earmark* *up to* £40k for the bid. That doesn't mean that £40k *will* be allocated, nor that, if it is allocated, the whole £40k will be spent. In fact, I think it's very unlikely we will find anything to spend that kind of money on in just the bidding stage, but that's why it's called a *draft*. You can't criticise the chapter for offering financial support when it was criticised last year for not providing financial support.
Now kindly keep your noses out of other people's business.
(I should probably point out that I'm not speaking on behalf of WMUK)
Thank you,
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
*From:* WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com *To:* Wikimania general list (open subscription) < wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org> *Sent:* Sunday, 26 August 2012, 12:34 *Subject:* Re: [Wikimania-l] UK budget plan for 2014 Wikimania bid
I agree that it would be wrong for chapter money to go into Wikimania bids, especially as some bid teams have access to resources that others don't. However London lost the last bid against Hong Kong partly because it was deemed not to have "solid support from the chapter". Considering how much support there was from the chapter it would be difficult to see how the UK chapter could give more solid support without supplying paid staff time. So the logical response to the jury's decision http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2012-May/003491.html is to budget for more solid support from the chapter.
If the Jury had said that both bids were very good , but for 2013 it was really time for another Wikimania in the Far East then we'd be in a different situation.
WSC
On 25 August 2012 20:32, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Staffing is a very good thing to spend money on—while executing the conference. Spending $62,000 on staff for a bid would be worth the investment if bidding for Wikimania were anything like bidding for the Olympics, but it is not. The spirit of Wikimania is ultimately from its volunteer leadership, and if the Wikimedia UK volunteers cannot muster that spirit to run their own bid, they have no hope and no soul.
James
On Aug 25, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Itzik Edri wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I just can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about 62,000$).
I wrote my last response on that few minutes ago:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Activity_Plan#5.2_Wikiconference_2013
"Hire a production company for half of this cost. It's really waste of donors money, for what we expect to be done by volunteers, or for a minimum costs. If every one who going to bid for Wikimania will spent this amount of money (and why them not? if UK can, why others not?), it's mean that for 4 places every year we are "spending" more than 260,000$ only for the bid!!!. --217.132.1.140 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)"
I really think the "Wikimania" groups need to speak about that. It's the first time a group/chapter spending such amount of money for bid, and it's open a door for next cities to do the same - with money which can uses to invest in Wikimania itself.
Itzik
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Of course, this IS something the whole community can and should discuss. It is about the future of Wikimania as a volunteer-driven event. WM-UK spending £40,000 is unfair for other future bids (did you know that most of the chapters have less than £40,000 for the whole annual budget?) and a terrible way of wasting money. WSC said that Hong Kong defeated London for 2013 because they had a more "solid support by the local Wikimedia Chapter", but Hong Kong spent 'zero'. Spending more money is futile and, in fact, gives me the opposite idea -- that the chapter is so uncommitted to the project that they need to hire people to do what others do on their free time.
I hope WM-UK will reject the idea after all these opinions (and probably also those in their internal channels)... and now I'll try to keep my nose in my own business, I suppose.
2012/8/26 Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il
Harry,
That's exactly our problem in the movement - that it seem like everyone can do whatever he want. But it's no.
The money, even if only part of him coming from the fundraising - is movement money. And if Wikimedia Israel is spending money for nothing, this is not only my concern - but something that everyone in the movement need to care, if we want future for our movement.
This is not the place, and this is not the right place - and I'm not meaning that WMUK are spending money unwittingly or not in modestly, like we need to do - but this is happen in the movement, but unfortunately there is also a trend of uncontrolled swelling budget, within the chapters, and also within the WMF.
But this is not the issue, the issue is the future and the kind of Wikimania as a community project, and the balance of power between the third Chapter in his budget size and other volunteer groups that are supposed to compete in the bid. It's one thing (and ok) if the Chapter staff invest there time on a bid, but it's something else to spend that amount of resources. Even if at the end it will be half of it, or a quarter of it. Even five thousand pounds, this huge amount compared to what others have invested so far.
Itzik
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 3:37 PM, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
Right, let me be quite blunt. This thread is not "undiplomatic", it's an attempt to meddle in the affairs of other chapters, which do not concern you. how would you have liked it if I was trashing the Haifa or DC bids before they were even anything as formal as bids?
As to "my opinion of WMUK has been tainted", let me again be very blunt. You have clearly not read the documents linked, or not understood what you were looking at. You are looking at suggestions. We are exploring a variety of options, none of which have been discussed or approved. Now, as WSC says, last year's bid failed partly because of insufficient support from the chapter, so this year, there is a *suggestion* in a *draft* budget to *earmark* *up to* £40k for the bid. That doesn't mean that £40k *will* be allocated, nor that, if it is allocated, the whole £40k will be spent. In fact, I think it's very unlikely we will find anything to spend that kind of money on in just the bidding stage, but that's why it's called a *draft*. You can't criticise the chapter for offering financial support when it was criticised last year for not providing financial support.
Now kindly keep your noses out of other people's business.
(I should probably point out that I'm not speaking on behalf of WMUK)
Thank you,
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
*From:* WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com *To:* Wikimania general list (open subscription) < wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org> *Sent:* Sunday, 26 August 2012, 12:34 *Subject:* Re: [Wikimania-l] UK budget plan for 2014 Wikimania bid
I agree that it would be wrong for chapter money to go into Wikimania bids, especially as some bid teams have access to resources that others don't. However London lost the last bid against Hong Kong partly because it was deemed not to have "solid support from the chapter". Considering how much support there was from the chapter it would be difficult to see how the UK chapter could give more solid support without supplying paid staff time. So the logical response to the jury's decision http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2012-May/003491.html is to budget for more solid support from the chapter.
If the Jury had said that both bids were very good , but for 2013 it was really time for another Wikimania in the Far East then we'd be in a different situation.
WSC
On 25 August 2012 20:32, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Staffing is a very good thing to spend money on—while executing the conference. Spending $62,000 on staff for a bid would be worth the investment if bidding for Wikimania were anything like bidding for the Olympics, but it is not. The spirit of Wikimania is ultimately from its volunteer leadership, and if the Wikimedia UK volunteers cannot muster that spirit to run their own bid, they have no hope and no soul.
James
On Aug 25, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Itzik Edri wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I just can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about 62,000$).
I wrote my last response on that few minutes ago:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Activity_Plan#5.2_Wikiconference_2013
"Hire a production company for half of this cost. It's really waste of donors money, for what we expect to be done by volunteers, or for a minimum costs. If every one who going to bid for Wikimania will spent this amount of money (and why them not? if UK can, why others not?), it's mean that for 4 places every year we are "spending" more than 260,000$ only for the bid!!!. --217.132.1.140 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)"
I really think the "Wikimania" groups need to speak about that. It's the first time a group/chapter spending such amount of money for bid, and it's open a door for next cities to do the same - with money which can uses to invest in Wikimania itself.
Itzik
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On 26 August 2012 16:00, Osmar Valdebenito osmar@wikimediachile.cl wrote:
WM-UK spending £40,000 is unfair for other future bids
I'm not sure "fairness" should be the goal here. We want to further our movement's goals the best way we can. If WMUK is able to do that better than other chapters for some reason, then it shouldn't be prevented from doing so just because it isn't fair. The reason I object to spending £40k on a bid is simply that it isn't worth the money. Spending that money will not further our goals better than the numerous other things we could do with £40k. There is also the fact that, if it worth it for WMUK to spend that kind of money on a bid, then it is also worth it for other bids to spend the same kind of money, so we end up with hundreds of thousands of pounds going on bids, most of which fail - that definitely isn't worth the money.
All of those qualifiers are nice, but the fact that it made it onto a draft at all is the issue. This was something that never should have made it that far. Lots of things get killed off in committee and never make it on paper. I'd be one thing if this was a transcript of the minutes, and it mentioned that it was brought up and promptly shelved. It's another thing entirely to have it get as far as a working document.
Wikipedia discussion boards regularly shoot down dangerous and stupid ideas before they make it very far. That's a good thing, it means that the project's defensive filters are working.
The idea of spending 40K or even 10K on a bid is a dangerous and stupid idea, and my respect for WMUK took a hit because you all let it get way too far. Kill it now.
Oh, and if you're pissed that people from other chapters are tearing WMUK a new one over this (i.e. meddling in your chapter's affairs), that should a) be an indication of how awful the idea being discussed is, and b) has a lot to do with that this discussion is taking place on Wikimania-l, a list subscribed to by large swaths of the movement, including those outside the UK. Don't want criticism? Keep it internal.
Sven
On Aug 26, 2012, at 8:37 AM, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
Right, let me be quite blunt. This thread is not "undiplomatic", it's an attempt to meddle in the affairs of other chapters, which do not concern you. how would you have liked it if I was trashing the Haifa or DC bids before they were even anything as formal as bids?
As to "my opinion of WMUK has been tainted", let me again be very blunt. You have clearly not read the documents linked, or not understood what you were looking at. You are looking at suggestions. We are exploring a variety of options, none of which have been discussed or approved. Now, as WSC says, last year's bid failed partly because of insufficient support from the chapter, so this year, there is a *suggestion* in a *draft* budget to *earmark* *up to* £40k for the bid. That doesn't mean that £40k *will* be allocated, nor that, if it is allocated, the whole £40k will be spent. In fact, I think it's very unlikely we will find anything to spend that kind of money on in just the bidding stage, but that's why it's called a *draft*. You can't criticise the chapter for offering financial support when it was criticised last year for not providing financial support.
Now kindly keep your noses out of other people's business.
(I should probably point out that I'm not speaking on behalf of WMUK)
Thank you,
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
From: WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com To: Wikimania general list (open subscription) wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, 26 August 2012, 12:34 Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] UK budget plan for 2014 Wikimania bid
I agree that it would be wrong for chapter money to go into Wikimania bids, especially as some bid teams have access to resources that others don't. However London lost the last bid against Hong Kong partly because it was deemed not to have "solid support from the chapter". Considering how much support there was from the chapter it would be difficult to see how the UK chapter could give more solid support without supplying paid staff time. So the logical response to the jury's decision http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2012-May/003491.html is to budget for more solid support from the chapter.
If the Jury had said that both bids were very good , but for 2013 it was really time for another Wikimania in the Far East then we'd be in a different situation.
WSC
On 25 August 2012 20:32, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote: Staffing is a very good thing to spend money on—while executing the conference. Spending $62,000 on staff for a bid would be worth the investment if bidding for Wikimania were anything like bidding for the Olympics, but it is not. The spirit of Wikimania is ultimately from its volunteer leadership, and if the Wikimedia UK volunteers cannot muster that spirit to run their own bid, they have no hope and no soul.
James
On Aug 25, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Itzik Edri wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I just can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about 62,000$).
I wrote my last response on that few minutes ago: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Activity_Plan#5.2_Wikiconference_2013
"Hire a production company for half of this cost. It's really waste of donors money, for what we expect to be done by volunteers, or for a minimum costs. If every one who going to bid for Wikimania will spent this amount of money (and why them not? if UK can, why others not?), it's mean that for 4 places every year we are "spending" more than 260,000$ only for the bid!!!. --217.132.1.140 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)"
I really think the "Wikimania" groups need to speak about that. It's the first time a group/chapter spending such amount of money for bid, and it's open a door for next cities to do the same - with money which can uses to invest in Wikimania itself.
Itzik
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On 26 August 2012 16:12, Sven svenmanguard@gmail.com wrote:
All of those qualifiers are nice, but the fact that it made it onto a draft at all is the issue. This was something that never should have made it that far. Lots of things get killed off in committee and never make it on paper. I'd be one thing if this was a transcript of the minutes, and it mentioned that it was brought up and promptly shelved. It's another thing entirely to have it get as far as a working document.
To be clear, there was no committee stage. This draft was stage one. The process of coming up with a budget started with Jon, our Chief Executive, posting a draft budget to kick start discussion. This budget item was on that draft. It got on the draft simply because one person, Jon, thought it was an idea worth putting out there for discussion. There was no approval process to get something into the draft and no opportunity to shelve it before it got there.
Now, it should have been removed from the draft long before now - I don't know why the WMUK board haven't intervened during the open discussion phase and removed it as a ridiculous idea, but are instead waiting until their scheduled board meeting to discuss it. The fact that it got into the draft isn't a problem; the fact that it is still there is.
See my previous email. Let me spell this out, since you're obviously too ignorant or too stupid to read what you're commenting on: you are commenting on a suggestion from one person. It hasn't got anywhere, except to a bunch of nosey do-gooders on a public mailing list who apparently not sufficiently fulfilled by building an encyclopaedia that they have to meddle in others' affairs. And we have kept it internal - it was not the bid committee who brought it to this list. Kindly get your facts straight before posting here again.
Nobody is seriously talking about spending £40k on the bid. As far as I can tell, the number was plucked out of thin air. I've just come from a two-hour meeting with the bid committee, where the idea of spending ~£17k on the bid was discussed. Even that's not a formal proposal - it's something that's being investigated, along with other options, and will have to undergo extensive discussion before we even get to the stage of asking the WMUK board to approve it, and which faces considerable opposition (including, to some extent, from me) even at this stage. Harry Mitchell
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________ From: Sven svenmanguard@gmail.com To: HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com; Wikimania general list (opensubscription) wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Wikimania general list (open subscription) wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, 26 August 2012, 16:12 Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] UK budget plan for 2014 Wikimania bid
All of those qualifiers are nice, but the fact that it made it onto a draft at all is the issue. This was something that never should have made it that far. Lots of things get killed off in committee and never make it on paper. I'd be one thing if this was a transcript of the minutes, and it mentioned that it was brought up and promptly shelved. It's another thing entirely to have it get as far as a working document.
Wikipedia discussion boards regularly shoot down dangerous and stupid ideas before they make it very far. That's a good thing, it means that the project's defensive filters are working.
The idea of spending 40K or even 10K on a bid is a dangerous and stupid idea, and my respect for WMUK took a hit because you all let it get way too far. Kill it now.
Oh, and if you're pissed that people from other chapters are tearing WMUK a new one over this (i.e. meddling in your chapter's affairs), that should a) be an indication of how awful the idea being discussed is, and b) has a lot to do with that this discussion is taking place on Wikimania-l, a list subscribed to by large swaths of the movement, including those outside the UK. Don't want criticism? Keep it internal.
Sven
On Aug 26, 2012, at 8:37 AM, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
Right, let me be quite blunt. This thread is not "undiplomatic", it's an attempt to meddle in the affairs of other chapters, which do not concern you. how would you have liked it if I was trashing the Haifa or DC bids before they were even anything as formal as bids?
As to "my opinion of WMUK has been tainted", let me again be very blunt. You have clearly not read the documents linked, or not understood what you were looking at. You are looking at suggestions. We are exploring a variety of options, none of which have been discussed or approved. Now, as WSC says, last year's bid failed partly because of insufficient support from the chapter, so this year, there is a *suggestion* in a *draft* budget to *earmark* *up to* £40k for the bid. That doesn't mean that £40k *will* be allocated, nor that, if it is allocated, the whole £40k will be spent. In fact, I think it's very unlikely we will find anything to spend that kind of money on in just the bidding stage, but that's why it's called a *draft*. You can't criticise the chapter for offering financial support when it was criticised last year for not providing financial support.
Now kindly keep your noses out of other people's business.
(I should probably point out that I'm not speaking on behalf of WMUK)
Thank you,
Harry Mitchell
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
From: WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com To: Wikimania general list (open subscription) wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, 26 August 2012, 12:34 Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] UK budget plan for 2014 Wikimania bid
I agree that it would be wrong for chapter money to go into Wikimania bids, especially as some bid teams have access to resources that others don't. However London lost the last bid against Hong Kong partly because it was deemed not to have "solid support from the chapter". Considering how much support there was from the chapter it would be difficult to see how the UK chapter could give more solid support without supplying paid staff time. So the logical response to the jury's decision http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2012-May/003491.html%C2%A0i... to budget for more solid support from the chapter.
If the Jury had said that both bids were very good , but for 2013 it was really time for another Wikimania in the Far East then we'd be in a different situation.
WSC
On 25 August 2012 20:32, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Staffing is a very good thing to spend money on—while executing the conference. Spending $62,000 on staff for a bid would be worth the investment if bidding for Wikimania were anything like bidding for the Olympics, but it is not. The spirit of Wikimania is ultimately from its volunteer leadership, and if the Wikimedia UK volunteers cannot muster that spirit to run their own bid, they have no hope and no soul.
James
On Aug 25, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Itzik Edri wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I just can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about 62,000$).
I wrote my last response on that few minutes ago:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Activity_Plan#5.2_Wikiconference_2013
"Hire a production company for half of this cost. It's really waste of donors money, for what we expect to be done by volunteers, or for a minimum costs. If every one who going to bid for Wikimania will spent this amount of money (and why them not? if UK can, why others not?), it's mean that for 4 places every year we are "spending" more than 260,000$ only for the bid!!!. --217.132.1.140 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)"
I really think the "Wikimania" groups need to speak about that. It's the first time a group/chapter spending such amount of money for bid, and it's open a door for next cities to do the same - with money which can uses to invest in Wikimania itself.
Itzik
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
See my previous email. Let me spell this out, since you're obviously too ignorant or too stupid to read what you're commenting on: you are commenting on a suggestion from one person. It hasn't got anywhere, except to a bunch of nosey do-gooders on a public mailing list who apparently not sufficiently fulfilled by building an encyclopaedia that they have to meddle in others' affairs. And we have kept it internal - it was not the bid committee who brought it to this list. Kindly get your facts straight before posting here again.
Nobody is seriously talking about spending £40k on the bid. As far as I can tell, the number was plucked out of thin air. I've just come from a two-hour meeting with the bid committee, where the idea of spending ~£17k on the bid was discussed. Even that's not a formal proposal - it's something that's being investigated, along with other options, and will have to undergo extensive discussion before we even get to the stage of asking the WMUK board to approve it, and which faces considerable opposition (including, to some extent, from me) even at this stage. Harry Mitchell
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________ From: Sven svenmanguard@gmail.com To: HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com; Wikimania general list (opensubscription) wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Wikimania general list (open subscription) wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, 26 August 2012, 16:12 Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] UK budget plan for 2014 Wikimania bid
All of those qualifiers are nice, but the fact that it made it onto a draft at all is the issue. This was something that never should have made it that far. Lots of things get killed off in committee and never make it on paper. I'd be one thing if this was a transcript of the minutes, and it mentioned that it was brought up and promptly shelved. It's another thing entirely to have it get as far as a working document.
Wikipedia discussion boards regularly shoot down dangerous and stupid ideas before they make it very far. That's a good thing, it means that the project's defensive filters are working.
The idea of spending 40K or even 10K on a bid is a dangerous and stupid idea, and my respect for WMUK took a hit because you all let it get way too far. Kill it now.
Oh, and if you're pissed that people from other chapters are tearing WMUK a new one over this (i.e. meddling in your chapter's affairs), that should a) be an indication of how awful the idea being discussed is, and b) has a lot to do with that this discussion is taking place on Wikimania-l, a list subscribed to by large swaths of the movement, including those outside the UK. Don't want criticism? Keep it internal.
Sven
On Aug 26, 2012, at 8:37 AM, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
Right, let me be quite blunt. This thread is not "undiplomatic", it's an attempt to meddle in the affairs of other chapters, which do not concern you. how would you have liked it if I was trashing the Haifa or DC bids before they were even anything as formal as bids?
As to "my opinion of WMUK has been tainted", let me again be very blunt. You have clearly not read the documents linked, or not understood what you were looking at. You are looking at suggestions. We are exploring a variety of options, none of which have been discussed or approved. Now, as WSC says, last year's bid failed partly because of insufficient support from the chapter, so this year, there is a *suggestion* in a *draft* budget to *earmark* *up to* £40k for the bid. That doesn't mean that £40k *will* be allocated, nor that, if it is allocated, the whole £40k will be spent. In fact, I think it's very unlikely we will find anything to spend that kind of money on in just the bidding stage, but that's why it's called a *draft*. You can't criticise the chapter for offering financial support when it was criticised last year for not providing financial support.
Now kindly keep your noses out of other people's business.
(I should probably point out that I'm not speaking on behalf of WMUK)
Thank you,
Harry Mitchell
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
From: WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com To: Wikimania general list (open subscription) wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, 26 August 2012, 12:34 Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] UK budget plan for 2014 Wikimania bid
I agree that it would be wrong for chapter money to go into Wikimania bids, especially as some bid teams have access to resources that others don't. However London lost the last bid against Hong Kong partly because it was deemed not to have "solid support from the chapter". Considering how much support there was from the chapter it would be difficult to see how the UK chapter could give more solid support without supplying paid staff time. So the logical response to the jury's decision http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2012-May/003491.html%C2%A0i... to budget for more solid support from the chapter.
If the Jury had said that both bids were very good , but for 2013 it was really time for another Wikimania in the Far East then we'd be in a different situation.
WSC
On 25 August 2012 20:32, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Staffing is a very good thing to spend money on—while executing the conference. Spending $62,000 on staff for a bid would be worth the investment if bidding for Wikimania were anything like bidding for the Olympics, but it is not. The spirit of Wikimania is ultimately from its volunteer leadership, and if the Wikimedia UK volunteers cannot muster that spirit to run their own bid, they have no hope and no soul.
James
On Aug 25, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Itzik Edri wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I just can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about 62,000$).
I wrote my last response on that few minutes ago:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Activity_Plan#5.2_Wikiconference_2013
"Hire a production company for half of this cost. It's really waste of donors money, for what we expect to be done by volunteers, or for a minimum costs. If every one who going to bid for Wikimania will spent this amount of money (and why them not? if UK can, why others not?), it's mean that for 4 places every year we are "spending" more than 260,000$ only for the bid!!!. --217.132.1.140 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)"
I really think the "Wikimania" groups need to speak about that. It's the first time a group/chapter spending such amount of money for bid, and it's open a door for next cities to do the same - with money which can uses to invest in Wikimania itself.
Itzik
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:34 AM, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
See my previous email. Let me spell this out, since you're obviously too ignorant or too stupid to read what you're commenting on: you are commenting on a suggestion from one person. It hasn't got anywhere, except to a bunch of nosey do-gooders on a public mailing list who apparently not sufficiently fulfilled by building an encyclopaedia that they have to meddle in others' affairs. And we have kept it internal - it was not the bid committee who brought it to this list. Kindly get your facts straight before posting here again.
I can't imagine how you can write this and stay affiliated with the UK chapter in any formal capacity.
I'm not affiliated with the UK chapter in any formal capacity. But If you'd read my emails, you'd know that. Harry Mitchell
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________ From: Nathan nawrich@gmail.com To: HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com; Wikimania general list (open subscription) wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, 26 August 2012, 16:39 Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] UK budget plan for 2014 Wikimania bid
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:34 AM, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
See my previous email. Let me spell this out, since you're obviously too ignorant or too stupid to read what you're commenting on: you are commenting on a suggestion from one person. It hasn't got anywhere, except to a bunch of nosey do-gooders on a public mailing list who apparently not sufficiently fulfilled by building an encyclopaedia that they have to meddle in others' affairs. And we have kept it internal - it was not the bid committee who brought it to this list. Kindly get your facts straight before posting here again.
I can't imagine how you can write this and stay affiliated with the UK chapter in any formal capacity.
Harry and all, This is just a quick reminder to please keep it civil on this list - namecalling isn't necessary. This list is for discussing all aspects of wikimania - both the conference itself and the bid process - and the discussion here is open to all wikimedians, as it's a subject that concerns all of us.
Best, Phoebe (Listmod)
I guess any bid has to be realistic, and in line with the standards of the day. We are currently between The Olympics and The Paralympics, where there were 70,000 volunteers to drive down costs (called "Games Makers") of running the London 2012 Games. And we assume that the London 2012 bid was funded.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_bid_for_the_2012_Summer_Olympics
As for Wikimania bid costs (that is up to the bid being won) expenses would be a good start.
And that other figure (of around £40K) perhaps could be a "no win, no fee" deal?
Gordo
But we're not at the Olympic level yet. Wikimania, after considering scholarships and staff travel, barely reaches a couple million dollars. And the bidding process is pretty unsophisticated for a conference that has become as large as it has.
On Aug 26, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Gordon Joly wrote:
I guess any bid has to be realistic, and in line with the standards of the day. We are currently between The Olympics and The Paralympics, where there were 70,000 volunteers to drive down costs (called "Games Makers") of running the London 2012 Games. And we assume that the London 2012 bid was funded.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_bid_for_the_2012_Summer_Olympics
As for Wikimania bid costs (that is up to the bid being won) expenses would be a good start.
And that other figure (of around £40K) perhaps could be a "no win, no fee" deal?
Gordo
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On 26 August 2012 16:34, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
Nobody is seriously talking about spending £40k on the bid. As far as I can tell, the number was plucked out of thin air. I've just come from a two-hour meeting with the bid committee, where the idea of spending ~£17k on the bid was discussed. Even that's not a formal proposal - it's something that's being investigated, along with other options, and will have to undergo extensive discussion before we even get to the stage of asking the WMUK board to approve it, and which faces considerable opposition (including, to some extent, from me) even at this stage.
Have you looked at the budget proposal from the bid committee (I linked to it earlier in this thread)? That £17k is just for paying the professional conference organiser and it in addition to a proposed £45k to go to the bid committee themselves to pay them for their time. As far as I can tell, that is a serious proposal from the bid committee. It is linked to from their minutes with the title "budget proposal agreed".
If that's a serious proposal, it isn't one that's been put to the Conference Committee (of which I'm acting chair, and which is overseeing the bid). We just had a two-hour meeting and it wasn't raised once. Harry Mitchell
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________ From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com; Wikimania general list (open subscription) wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, 26 August 2012, 16:45 Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] UK budget plan for 2014 Wikimania bid
On 26 August 2012 16:34, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
Nobody is seriously talking about spending £40k on the bid. As far as I can tell, the number was plucked out of thin air. I've just come from a two-hour meeting with the bid committee, where the idea of spending ~£17k on the bid was discussed. Even that's not a formal proposal - it's something that's being investigated, along with other options, and will have to undergo extensive discussion before we even get to the stage of asking the WMUK board to approve it, and which faces considerable opposition (including, to some extent, from me) even at this stage.
Have you looked at the budget proposal from the bid committee (I linked to it earlier in this thread)? That £17k is just for paying the professional conference organiser and it in addition to a proposed £45k to go to the bid committee themselves to pay them for their time. As far as I can tell, that is a serious proposal from the bid committee. It is linked to from their minutes with the title "budget proposal agreed".
On 26 August 2012 16:52, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
If that's a serious proposal, it isn't one that's been put to the Conference Committee (of which I'm acting chair, and which is overseeing the bid). We just had a two-hour meeting and it wasn't raised once.
There there are some procedural issues with your committee structure...
On 26/08/2012 16:54, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 26 August 2012 16:52, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
If that's a serious proposal, it isn't one that's been put to the Conference Committee (of which I'm acting chair, and which is overseeing the bid). We just had a two-hour meeting and it wasn't raised once.
There there are some procedural issues with your committee structure...
Why is there issues when something that's not being proposed not get raised?
KTC
2012/8/26 HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com:
Right, let me be quite blunt. This thread is not "undiplomatic", it's an attempt to meddle in the affairs of other chapters, which do not concern you. how would you have liked it if I was trashing the Haifa or DC bids before they were even anything as formal as bids?
I disagree, as a chapter board member (WM-IT) I find this discussion instructive, since we probably may want to present a bid ourselves in the future. Moreover I think it is a good thing if we are able to point out a problem when we have (plenty of) time to solve it.
As to "my opinion of WMUK has been tainted", let me again be very blunt.
This I agree more with, as far as I could read this was only a proposal, so there's no need to be enraged. I also think that WMUK board will hear to every suggestion is made in this thread and in the further stages of the bidding process. Nobody is throwing away the bid, per sè.
Now kindly keep your noses out of other people's business.
I strongly disagree with this, it is about the movement and so it's good to have some opinion sharing.
That said, I repeat, I think that nobody (neither WMUK or Wikimedians) should feel hurt by a proposal.
Cristian
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:37 AM, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
Right, let me be quite blunt. This thread is not "undiplomatic", it's an attempt to meddle in the affairs of other chapters, which do not concern you. how would you have liked it if I was trashing the Haifa or DC bids before they were even anything as formal as bids?
[snip]
Now kindly keep your noses out of other people's business.
(I should probably point out that I'm not speaking on behalf of WMUK)
Thank you,
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
You seem to have the impression that the money, which was raised during the Wikimedia Foundation's annual fundraiser, belongs to you and should be spent at your sole discretion. Yet oddly, if I recall correctly, the Wikimedia UK chapter supports the FDC and the WCA - both attempts to internationalize Wikimedia money as 'movement funds.' It should be immediately apparent how these two positions conflict.
It sounds like your UK colleagues may not agree with you, which is heartening, but let me say this anyway: other Wikimedians have, at a minimum, the clear right to express an opinion on how you spend donations from Wikimedia donors. It is rude and way out of line for you to suggest that we not even comment on how you propose to spend donor money or that doing so is inappropriate "meddling in your affairs."
On 25 August 2012 20:28, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I just can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about 62,000$).
To be clear, that plan is still in draft, and that particular item has received plenty of opposition.
I am in favour of spending money on bids - it is necessary if we want to get professional quality bids. I am not in favour of spending that kind of money on bids, though.
This is one thing to "invest" 5,000$ or so for planning process, legal or expert advises - that is reasonable (and others did it without - Haifa, Argentina, DC, Poland..) 64,000$ is not.
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On 25 August 2012 20:28, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I
just
can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about
62,000$).
To be clear, that plan is still in draft, and that particular item has received plenty of opposition.
I am in favour of spending money on bids - it is necessary if we want to get professional quality bids. I am not in favour of spending that kind of money on bids, though.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Maybe the question should first be: what kind of Wikimania do we want. Personally, I would be totally happy with down scaling the conference a bit. Less visitors (500-600), less events and less professional. Let it be more volunteer focused, and yes, perhaps also a bit more chaotic. That also means we can change the nature of bids: more back to basic and more focus on location, venue and accomodation. If we can bring the budget down, we also need to focus less on sponsorships etc, which should make the bidding easier and more open to more groups of dedicated volunteers.
I know other people have a different opinion about it, and would rather make the conference more professional, less risky, more fancy etc. I prefer it to be a lower key community event.
Lodewijk
2012/8/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
On 25 August 2012 20:28, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I
just
can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about
62,000$).
To be clear, that plan is still in draft, and that particular item has received plenty of opposition.
I am in favour of spending money on bids - it is necessary if we want to get professional quality bids. I am not in favour of spending that kind of money on bids, though.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
I don't think this is a suitable topic for such a public mailing list at this time, regardless. Hong Kong comes before a bid that hasn't actually been finalised.
Joe On 25 August 2012 20:46, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Maybe the question should first be: what kind of Wikimania do we want. Personally, I would be totally happy with down scaling the conference a bit. Less visitors (500-600), less events and less professional. Let it be more volunteer focused, and yes, perhaps also a bit more chaotic. That also means we can change the nature of bids: more back to basic and more focus on location, venue and accomodation. If we can bring the budget down, we also need to focus less on sponsorships etc, which should make the bidding easier and more open to more groups of dedicated volunteers.
I know other people have a different opinion about it, and would rather make the conference more professional, less risky, more fancy etc. I prefer it to be a lower key community event.
Lodewijk
2012/8/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
On 25 August 2012 20:28, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I
just
can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about
62,000$).
To be clear, that plan is still in draft, and that particular item has received plenty of opposition.
I am in favour of spending money on bids - it is necessary if we want to get professional quality bids. I am not in favour of spending that kind of money on bids, though.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Eek, I didn't notice this was the Wikimania list..
Agreed! This is a totally inappropriate venue.
Tom
On 25 August 2012 20:48, Joseph Fox josephfoxwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think this is a suitable topic for such a public mailing list at this time, regardless. Hong Kong comes before a bid that hasn't actually been finalised.
Joe On 25 August 2012 20:46, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Maybe the question should first be: what kind of Wikimania do we want. Personally, I would be totally happy with down scaling the conference a bit. Less visitors (500-600), less events and less professional. Let it be more volunteer focused, and yes, perhaps also a bit more chaotic. That also means we can change the nature of bids: more back to basic and more focus on location, venue and accomodation. If we can bring the budget down, we also need to focus less on sponsorships etc, which should make the bidding easier and more open to more groups of dedicated volunteers.
I know other people have a different opinion about it, and would rather make the conference more professional, less risky, more fancy etc. I prefer it to be a lower key community event.
Lodewijk
2012/8/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
On 25 August 2012 20:28, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I
just
can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about
62,000$).
To be clear, that plan is still in draft, and that particular item has received plenty of opposition.
I am in favour of spending money on bids - it is necessary if we want to get professional quality bids. I am not in favour of spending that kind of money on bids, though.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On 25 August 2012 20:51, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Eek, I didn't notice this was the Wikimania list..
Agreed! This is a totally inappropriate venue.
This is a general discussion about what kind of money it is reasonable to spend on the Wikimania bid. That discussion is relevant to far more than just WMUK, so why should the discussion to restricted to UK fora?
We're talking about bid selection here. I think this is the most suitable list and moment to discuss that - before anyone starts investing time and money in the 2014 bids. For 2013 we already made the choice for the Hong Kong bid, and they should continue organizing it as they presented in their bid. That doesn't discharge us from thinking about the future.
Lodewijk
2012/8/25 Joseph Fox josephfoxwiki@gmail.com
I don't think this is a suitable topic for such a public mailing list at this time, regardless. Hong Kong comes before a bid that hasn't actually been finalised.
Joe On 25 August 2012 20:46, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Maybe the question should first be: what kind of Wikimania do we want. Personally, I would be totally happy with down scaling the conference a bit. Less visitors (500-600), less events and less professional. Let it be more volunteer focused, and yes, perhaps also a bit more chaotic. That also means we can change the nature of bids: more back to basic and more focus on location, venue and accomodation. If we can bring the budget down, we also need to focus less on sponsorships etc, which should make the bidding easier and more open to more groups of dedicated volunteers.
I know other people have a different opinion about it, and would rather make the conference more professional, less risky, more fancy etc. I prefer it to be a lower key community event.
Lodewijk
2012/8/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
On 25 August 2012 20:28, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I
just
can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about
62,000$).
To be clear, that plan is still in draft, and that particular item has received plenty of opposition.
I am in favour of spending money on bids - it is necessary if we want to get professional quality bids. I am not in favour of spending that kind of money on bids, though.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On 25 August 2012 20:48, Joseph Fox josephfoxwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think this is a suitable topic for such a public mailing list at this time, regardless. Hong Kong comes before a bid that hasn't actually been finalised.
The 2014 host will be chosen before we all go to Hong Kong, so now seems like a good time for discussing the 2014 bids...
...On this list? I don't think so. Unless we also want to poke our noses into Bukittinggi and Sydney's potential finances as well?
Joe
On 25 August 2012 20:51, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 August 2012 20:48, Joseph Fox josephfoxwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think this is a suitable topic for such a public mailing list at this time, regardless. Hong Kong comes before a bid that hasn't actually been finalised.
The 2014 host will be chosen before we all go to Hong Kong, so now seems like a good time for discussing the 2014 bids...
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
I hope the committee that evaluates bids looks for communities of Wikimedians who are prepared to host Wikimania. A big check does not a community make, and no amount of spending of donors money will replace actual Wikimedians with the interest and desire in hosting Wikimania.
To be honest I'm rather offended that the UK bid is being written off while it's still 2014. I agree with you, but London is far from the cheapest city in the world, as I'm sure you're aware - money will be required.
Joe
On 25 August 2012 21:08, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I hope the committee that evaluates bids looks for communities of Wikimedians who are prepared to host Wikimania. A big check does not a community make, and no amount of spending of donors money will replace actual Wikimedians with the interest and desire in hosting Wikimania. _______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Joseph Fox josephfoxwiki@gmail.com wrote:
To be honest I'm rather offended that the UK bid is being written off while it's still 2014. I agree with you, but London is far from the cheapest city in the world, as I'm sure you're aware - money will be required.
Joe
Who said it should be written off? I just think that if the bid is developed by a professional with a big budget, rather than by actual Wikimedians, that's an indication that (as Tom Morton suggested) there isn't an active group of Wikimedians who support it. The bid evaluation team should take that into account. It's perfectly possible, of course, that the UK will mount a normal bid and be quite successful.
A lot of the WMUK board members were at Wikimania in DC. They're all passionate Wikimedians, I can assure you.
Joe
On 25 August 2012 21:13, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Joseph Fox josephfoxwiki@gmail.comwrote:
To be honest I'm rather offended that the UK bid is being written off while it's still 2014. I agree with you, but London is far from the cheapest city in the world, as I'm sure you're aware - money will be required.
Joe
Who said it should be written off? I just think that if the bid is developed by a professional with a big budget, rather than by actual Wikimedians, that's an indication that (as Tom Morton suggested) there isn't an active group of Wikimedians who support it. The bid evaluation team should take that into account. It's perfectly possible, of course, that the UK will mount a normal bid and be quite successful.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On 25 August 2012 21:13, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Joseph Fox josephfoxwiki@gmail.comwrote:
To be honest I'm rather offended that the UK bid is being written off while it's still 2014. I agree with you, but London is far from the cheapest city in the world, as I'm sure you're aware - money will be required.
Joe
Who said it should be written off? I just think that if the bid is developed by a professional with a big budget,
That's not a good way to describe the situation. I was unaware which list we were talking on - assuming that it was the UK discussion list where people are aware of the setup we have.
rather than by actual Wikimedians, that's an indication that (as Tom Morton
suggested) there isn't an active group of Wikimedians who support it.
Far from it; there are a lot of active Wikimedians deeply involved in the process. But, as noted, volunteers tend to flit around and miss deadlines :)
Ed, who is the guy involved, has put a lot of his own (volunteer) time in so far - he is reallyu into the process, and brings experience and contacts.
But this is really a little too specific for a public list. I'd welcome a discussion about bid budgets etc. but without reference to one (of several) entirely undecided budget idea.
Tom
I'm sorry, guys, I think I'm guilty of not reading up properly on this - apparently the £40,000 is just for the *bid*? Clarification from someone at WMUK please?
I think surely that's an estimate on total cost that's been misquoted...
Joe
On 25 August 2012 21:25, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
On 25 August 2012 21:13, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Joseph Fox josephfoxwiki@gmail.comwrote:
To be honest I'm rather offended that the UK bid is being written off while it's still 2014. I agree with you, but London is far from the cheapest city in the world, as I'm sure you're aware - money will be required.
Joe
Who said it should be written off? I just think that if the bid is developed by a professional with a big budget,
That's not a good way to describe the situation. I was unaware which list we were talking on - assuming that it was the UK discussion list where people are aware of the setup we have.
rather than by actual Wikimedians, that's an indication that (as Tom
Morton suggested) there isn't an active group of Wikimedians who support it.
Far from it; there are a lot of active Wikimedians deeply involved in the process. But, as noted, volunteers tend to flit around and miss deadlines :)
Ed, who is the guy involved, has put a lot of his own (volunteer) time in so far - he is reallyu into the process, and brings experience and contacts.
But this is really a little too specific for a public list. I'd welcome a discussion about bid budgets etc. but without reference to one (of several) entirely undecided budget idea.
Tom
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On 25 August 2012 21:31, Joseph Fox josephfoxwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, guys, I think I'm guilty of not reading up properly on this - apparently the £40,000 is just for the *bid*? Clarification from someone at WMUK please?
I think surely that's an estimate on total cost that's been misquoted...
Joe
It's one of several very early suggestions (in this case - as part of a much broader discussion of next years budget).
Nothing has been decided - or even discussed - at this stage.
Tom
Gotcha. Thanks for that, Tom.
Joe
On 25 August 2012 21:33, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
On 25 August 2012 21:31, Joseph Fox josephfoxwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, guys, I think I'm guilty of not reading up properly on this - apparently the £40,000 is just for the *bid*? Clarification from someone at WMUK please?
I think surely that's an estimate on total cost that's been misquoted...
Joe
It's one of several very early suggestions (in this case - as part of a much broader discussion of next years budget).
Nothing has been decided - or even discussed - at this stage.
Tom
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On 25 August 2012 21:31, Joseph Fox josephfoxwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, guys, I think I'm guilty of not reading up properly on this - apparently the £40,000 is just for the bid? Clarification from someone at WMUK please?
I think surely that's an estimate on total cost that's been misquoted...
No misquote. The proposal is to spend that on the bid. In fact, the original proposal was to spend that on the last three months of the bid (since the WMUK financial year starts in February and the decision will be made in April), although it has been suggested that the timing could be adjusted so the money would come out of this year's budget.
You can see the bid committee's proposed budget here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqB4pGmDm24SdEZCS0xIdVk2dC0wTll...
As you can see, it actually adds up to £62.5k ($98.8k) and most of that is going on paying the bid committee themselves.
I'm confident the board will not approve that proposal, although I am disappointed that they didn't reject it as soon as it was proposed but have let discussions about it continue until their board meeting.
Wikimania is not cheap, I quite agree, and there is tremendous value to the community and future partners in having a professional and exciting event. I did not read this thread as people concerned about the cost of Wikimania, but rather the costs of the bid itself. Washington, DC, is quite an expensive city, and the total amount of money spent on the bid was exactly $0. Spending money on a conference is investing. Spending money on a bid is gambling.
If an organization has to spend money to convince a committee of volunteers that Wikimania should take place under its care, then it already started off on the wrong foot. I think London is a fantastic place for a conference, with lots of museums, libraries, and potential partners. It could very well win the bid without any money spent on putting it together, especially since it's pretty much a retool of last year's bid. I hope that the board decides to hold the money allocated for the bid to use towards Wikimania, like for scholarships, as opposed to just on the bid itself.
--
Nicholas Michael Bashour
President *|* Wikimedia District of Columbia http://www.wikimediadc.org/
PO Box 9822 *| *Washington, DC 20016
**+1 (313) 377 - 4589*|*@NMichaelBashour http://goog_1373167767*http://www.twitter.com/nmichaelbashour **|*Nicholas.Bashour@wikimediadc.org
This has tainted my opinion of WMUK as an organization. Opposed or not, that this even made it into a draft is appalling. Quite simply put, if we get into the habit of expensive, aggressive, Olympics/World Cup style bidding wars, we're going to shut poorer counties and countries without strong fundraising chapters out of the process, and Wikimania and the movement will suffer for it.
Sven
On Aug 25, 2012, at 9:51 PM, Nicholas Michael Bashour nicholasbashour@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimania is not cheap, I quite agree, and there is tremendous value to the community and future partners in having a professional and exciting event. I did not read this thread as people concerned about the cost of Wikimania, but rather the costs of the bid itself. Washington, DC, is quite an expensive city, and the total amount of money spent on the bid was exactly $0. Spending money on a conference is investing. Spending money on a bid is gambling.
If an organization has to spend money to convince a committee of volunteers that Wikimania should take place under its care, then it already started off on the wrong foot. I think London is a fantastic place for a conference, with lots of museums, libraries, and potential partners. It could very well win the bid without any money spent on putting it together, especially since it's pretty much a retool of last year's bid. I hope that the board decides to hold the money allocated for the bid to use towards Wikimania, like for scholarships, as opposed to just on the bid itself.
--
Nicholas Michael Bashour President | Wikimedia District of Columbia PO Box 9822 | Washington, DC 20016 +1 (313) 377 - 4589|@NMichaelBashour|Nicholas.Bashour@wikimediadc.org
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On 26/08/2012 05:28, Sven wrote:
This has tainted my opinion of WMUK as an organization. Opposed or not, that this even made it into a draft is appalling. Quite simply put, if we get into the habit of expensive, aggressive, Olympics/World Cup style bidding wars, we're going to shut poorer counties and countries without strong fundraising chapters out of the process, and Wikimania and the movement will suffer for it.
Tinted your opinion because we do things in a open transparent way where everyone in the world can see, that different people involved have different ideas of what's right and we don't outright reject every idea because it's different? If that's the Wikimedia movement that exist, I'll rather not be part of it.
KTC
Am 25.08.2012 22:10, schrieb Joseph Fox:
To be honest I'm rather offended that the UK bid is being written off while it's still 2014. I agree with you, but London is far from the cheapest city in the world, as I'm sure you're aware - money will be required.
from my experience on the Wikimania Jury I can assure you that it is pretty much taken into account how much Wikimania experience the bidding team has and how much the understand to make a Wikimania as Wikimania is.
/Manuel
I understand this. But people here seem to have seen that they'll be making up a financial plan for the event, then announcing that there is no raw passion underneath the money. I'm just telling you that there are a *lot* of very active and very passionate Wikimedians in the UK looking to make the best possible event.
Also remembering that Brits are all tightfisted, of course, so they'll not be silly with their money ;)
(Also, James, my apologies for the assumption. I wonder if WMUK will be able to negotiate such a discount...)
Joe
On 25 August 2012 21:15, Manuel Schneider manuel.schneider@wikimedia.chwrote:
Am 25.08.2012 22:10, schrieb Joseph Fox:
To be honest I'm rather offended that the UK bid is being written off
while
it's still 2014. I agree with you, but London is far from the cheapest
city
in the world, as I'm sure you're aware - money will be required.
from my experience on the Wikimania Jury I can assure you that it is pretty much taken into account how much Wikimania experience the bidding team has and how much the understand to make a Wikimania as Wikimania is.
/Manuel
Regards Manuel Schneider
Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Wikimedia CH - Association for the advancement of free knowledge www.wikimedia.ch
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Am 25.08.2012 21:46, schrieb Lodewijk:
Maybe the question should first be: what kind of Wikimania do we want. Personally, I would be totally happy with down scaling the conference a bit. Less visitors (500-600), less events and less professional. Let it be more volunteer focused, and yes, perhaps also a bit more chaotic. That also means we can change the nature of bids: more back to basic and more focus on location, venue and accomodation. If we can bring the budget down, we also need to focus less on sponsorships etc, which should make the bidding easier and more open to more groups of dedicated volunteers.
this is exactly the point I wanted to make.
Wikimania is not a place to professionalise. Well, a bit, but not too overly.
The unique thing at Wikimania is the atmosphere. And sorry to say so but I don't see non-Wikimedians (or "not Wikimedians per se") making a great Wikimania. That just doesn't work. That does not mean you are not allowed to hire a production company to make your life easier but it means that the core team and the project manager are true full-hearted Wikimedians. There are plenty of them out there. We don't need six bids for Wikimania each year. We don't need chapters bidding for Wikimania because having done a Wikimania puts them in a certain level. As was said before, Wikimania is not the Olympic Games or the Soccer World Championship.
/Manuel
On 08/25/2012 09:46 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
Maybe the question should first be: what kind of Wikimania do we want. Personally, I would be totally happy with down scaling the conference a bit. Less visitors (500-600), less events and less professional. Let it be more volunteer focused, and yes, perhaps also a bit more chaotic.
I concur and I'm glad you brought this topic up.
Wikimedians are not professionals, they are volunteers. Our community /is/ chaotic and a bit unorganized. It's fine if Wikimania reflects that.
That also means we can change the nature of bids: more back to basic and more focus on location, venue and accomodation.
We should also focus on making Wikimania more affordable. If that means choosing cheaper locations that might be a bit less spectacular, that's fine with me. I've always thought the charm of Wikimania stems from its participants and not a particular venue.
Manuel (among others) is organizing WikiCon 2012, which will start in a few days in Austria. The fee is only 10 Euro for the full conference (three days), and that even includes meals and a place to sleep in a gym. Last year's WikiCon was fantastic even though there was not an exotic venue, a beach party, a wonderful port or a disco night in the center of a large city. I'm not saying that I don't enjoy such events, nor that they aren't parts of the positive memory I have of past Wikimanias, but expensive and exotic events and locations should not be considered a "must" for future Wikimanias.
Regards, Tobias
Ps.: The WikiCon conference for german-speaking countries is a great example of an event between the magnitude of million-dollar-events like Wikimania and zero-dollar local community meetups. They work great, help to get to know each other in real life (and to sort out differences) as well as exchanging ideas and bringing the movement forward. You should have a WikiCon in your country, too!
There is a risk of people adding too much into Wikimanias. I've been to three Wikimania events and the most lost people I met were not those editors who were at their first event - they fitted in well. The most lost people I met were those who hadn't started editing yet. I'm very happy to make time for such people, and in London we are holding events to introduce potential editors to Wikimedia. But I don't think that such events are a natural fit with wikimania, and I would suggest that we not promote Wikimania to non-editors. Nor do I think that we should aim for Wikimania to be an event for the press. Yes if there are journalists who are interested and want to come by all means let them. Though I've yet to meet a journalist who doesn't feel that they have some sort of professional duty to out any Wikimedian they report on. But we shouldn't let Wikimania become some sort of media event, though it will be difficult to avoid producing any press releases from a Wikimania. An inwardly focussed event that doesn't try to "raise its media profile" would be better than one that considers press coverage to be a measure of its success.
As for costs we need to remember that for many if not most travel will be the largest part of the bill, and when you include the cost of getting there London becomes one of our cheapest potential venues. We just need to make sure that the facilities and budget accommodation are as cheap as London (or elsewhere near Heathrow) is capable of. But with the greying of the pedia we need to cater both for those whose idea of basic accommodation is a room with a bed and for those who are looking for somewhere they can stretch out a sleeping bag.
One economy we can make based on last years Indian conference is that we don't need WiFi everywhere. A designated WiFi free zone with coffee is a useful part of a large meetup and it should save money if you can tell the WiFi provider to designate the hardest coffee area to provide WiFi for as a WiFi free zone.
What I'd like to see in a Wikimania bid is a commitment for e-involvement and making things as multilingual as practical. We could do this by working with chapters and other local groups so that for topics that people want to get involved in we repeat the session online and in requested languages with a translator working with the presenter.
WSC
On 27 August 2012 08:55, Tobias church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com wrote:
On 08/25/2012 09:46 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
Maybe the question should first be: what kind of Wikimania do we want. Personally, I would be totally happy with down scaling the conference a bit. Less visitors (500-600), less events and less professional. Let it be more volunteer focused, and yes, perhaps also a bit more chaotic.
I concur and I'm glad you brought this topic up.
Wikimedians are not professionals, they are volunteers. Our community /is/ chaotic and a bit unorganized. It's fine if Wikimania reflects that.
That also means we can change the nature of bids: more back to basic and
more focus on location, venue and accomodation.
We should also focus on making Wikimania more affordable. If that means choosing cheaper locations that might be a bit less spectacular, that's fine with me. I've always thought the charm of Wikimania stems from its participants and not a particular venue.
Manuel (among others) is organizing WikiCon 2012, which will start in a few days in Austria. The fee is only 10 Euro for the full conference (three days), and that even includes meals and a place to sleep in a gym. Last year's WikiCon was fantastic even though there was not an exotic venue, a beach party, a wonderful port or a disco night in the center of a large city. I'm not saying that I don't enjoy such events, nor that they aren't parts of the positive memory I have of past Wikimanias, but expensive and exotic events and locations should not be considered a "must" for future Wikimanias.
Regards, Tobias
Ps.: The WikiCon conference for german-speaking countries is a great example of an event between the magnitude of million-dollar-events like Wikimania and zero-dollar local community meetups. They work great, help to get to know each other in real life (and to sort out differences) as well as exchanging ideas and bringing the movement forward. You should have a WikiCon in your country, too!
______________________________**_________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimania-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Just one small detail:
*As for costs we need to remember that for many if not most travel will be
the largest part of the bill, and when you include the cost of getting there London becomes one of our cheapest potential venues*
Lets remember that London isn't alone in that. If the Wikimania is Europe - does not mind if is in Portugal, Spain, France, Italy Germany, Poland or the european part of Russia - the travel cost will be as cheap for other European residents. _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 27 August 2012 06:01, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.comwrote:
There is a risk of people adding too much into Wikimanias. I've been to three Wikimania events and the most lost people I met were not those editors who were at their first event - they fitted in well. The most lost people I met were those who hadn't started editing yet. I'm very happy to make time for such people, and in London we are holding events to introduce potential editors to Wikimedia. But I don't think that such events are a natural fit with wikimania, and I would suggest that we not promote Wikimania to non-editors. Nor do I think that we should aim for Wikimania to be an event for the press. Yes if there are journalists who are interested and want to come by all means let them. Though I've yet to meet a journalist who doesn't feel that they have some sort of professional duty to out any Wikimedian they report on. But we shouldn't let Wikimania become some sort of media event, though it will be difficult to avoid producing any press releases from a Wikimania. An inwardly focussed event that doesn't try to "raise its media profile" would be better than one that considers press coverage to be a measure of its success.
As for costs we need to remember that for many if not most travel will be the largest part of the bill, and when you include the cost of getting there London becomes one of our cheapest potential venues. We just need to make sure that the facilities and budget accommodation are as cheap as London (or elsewhere near Heathrow) is capable of. But with the greying of the pedia we need to cater both for those whose idea of basic accommodation is a room with a bed and for those who are looking for somewhere they can stretch out a sleeping bag.
One economy we can make based on last years Indian conference is that we don't need WiFi everywhere. A designated WiFi free zone with coffee is a useful part of a large meetup and it should save money if you can tell the WiFi provider to designate the hardest coffee area to provide WiFi for as a WiFi free zone.
What I'd like to see in a Wikimania bid is a commitment for e-involvement and making things as multilingual as practical. We could do this by working with chapters and other local groups so that for topics that people want to get involved in we repeat the session online and in requested languages with a translator working with the presenter.
WSC
On 27 August 2012 08:55, Tobias church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com wrote:
On 08/25/2012 09:46 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
Maybe the question should first be: what kind of Wikimania do we want. Personally, I would be totally happy with down scaling the conference a bit. Less visitors (500-600), less events and less professional. Let it be more volunteer focused, and yes, perhaps also a bit more chaotic.
I concur and I'm glad you brought this topic up.
Wikimedians are not professionals, they are volunteers. Our community /is/ chaotic and a bit unorganized. It's fine if Wikimania reflects that.
That also means we can change the nature of bids: more back to basic and
more focus on location, venue and accomodation.
We should also focus on making Wikimania more affordable. If that means choosing cheaper locations that might be a bit less spectacular, that's fine with me. I've always thought the charm of Wikimania stems from its participants and not a particular venue.
Manuel (among others) is organizing WikiCon 2012, which will start in a few days in Austria. The fee is only 10 Euro for the full conference (three days), and that even includes meals and a place to sleep in a gym. Last year's WikiCon was fantastic even though there was not an exotic venue, a beach party, a wonderful port or a disco night in the center of a large city. I'm not saying that I don't enjoy such events, nor that they aren't parts of the positive memory I have of past Wikimanias, but expensive and exotic events and locations should not be considered a "must" for future Wikimanias.
Regards, Tobias
Ps.: The WikiCon conference for german-speaking countries is a great example of an event between the magnitude of million-dollar-events like Wikimania and zero-dollar local community meetups. They work great, help to get to know each other in real life (and to sort out differences) as well as exchanging ideas and bringing the movement forward. You should have a WikiCon in your country, too!
______________________________**_________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimania-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On 28 August 2012 00:41, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
As for costs we need to remember that for many if not most travel will be the largest part of the bill, and when you include the cost of getting there London becomes one of our cheapest potential venues
Lets remember that London isn't alone in that. If the Wikimania is Europe - does not mind if is in Portugal, Spain, France, Italy Germany, Poland or the european part of Russia - the travel cost will be as cheap for other European residents.
However, for people attending from outside Europe, London is a lot cheaper than most places to get to due to being a major hub. To get to a lot of places in Europe from outside Europe, your cheapest route is often to go via London. (Paris and Frankfurt are also major hubs, but the other countries you mention would generally be more expensive to get to.)
Actually from South America, all flights I see (and believe me, I took that route several times, being the last one in January this year) goes by Madrid, Lisbon or Roma, and the cheapest one to / from Brasil, goes to Barcelona. _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 27 August 2012 20:57, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 August 2012 00:41, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
As for costs we need to remember that for many if not most travel will
be
the largest part of the bill, and when you include the cost of getting
there
London becomes one of our cheapest potential venues
Lets remember that London isn't alone in that. If the Wikimania is
Europe -
does not mind if is in Portugal, Spain, France, Italy Germany, Poland or
the
european part of Russia - the travel cost will be as cheap for other European residents.
However, for people attending from outside Europe, London is a lot cheaper than most places to get to due to being a major hub. To get to a lot of places in Europe from outside Europe, your cheapest route is often to go via London. (Paris and Frankfurt are also major hubs, but the other countries you mention would generally be more expensive to get to.)
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
No, travel costs are not a purely geographic thing. London is an unusually central location for the world's airlines, and also has a number of budget airlines with many routes. If everyone was driving across Europe to Wikimania then it would be logical to hold it somewhere near Crackow or Bratislava. But if most people are flying and many are doing so from cities that don't have major international airports then London is unusually, perhaps uniquely well connected.
Flying costs vary somewhat with distance, but more with competition, number of connections needed and standard of airline. There are disadvantages to budget airlines that don't allocate a specific seat and charge extra for baggage in the hold and even food, but they are usually cheaper. I know a family that have decided never to fly RyanAir again after not being able to get a block of four seats for two adults and two small children. But it is very cheap for one adult flying alone with just a weekend bag and no preference as to where they sit, and I suspect that describes the typical Wikimanian.
WSC On 28 August 2012 00:41, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Just one small detail:
*As for costs we need to remember that for many if not most travel will
be the largest part of the bill, and when you include the cost of getting there London becomes one of our cheapest potential venues*
Lets remember that London isn't alone in that. If the Wikimania is Europe
- does not mind if is in Portugal, Spain, France, Italy Germany, Poland or
the european part of Russia - the travel cost will be as cheap for other European residents. _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 27 August 2012 06:01, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.comwrote:
There is a risk of people adding too much into Wikimanias. I've been to three Wikimania events and the most lost people I met were not those editors who were at their first event - they fitted in well. The most lost people I met were those who hadn't started editing yet. I'm very happy to make time for such people, and in London we are holding events to introduce potential editors to Wikimedia. But I don't think that such events are a natural fit with wikimania, and I would suggest that we not promote Wikimania to non-editors. Nor do I think that we should aim for Wikimania to be an event for the press. Yes if there are journalists who are interested and want to come by all means let them. Though I've yet to meet a journalist who doesn't feel that they have some sort of professional duty to out any Wikimedian they report on. But we shouldn't let Wikimania become some sort of media event, though it will be difficult to avoid producing any press releases from a Wikimania. An inwardly focussed event that doesn't try to "raise its media profile" would be better than one that considers press coverage to be a measure of its success.
As for costs we need to remember that for many if not most travel will be the largest part of the bill, and when you include the cost of getting there London becomes one of our cheapest potential venues. We just need to make sure that the facilities and budget accommodation are as cheap as London (or elsewhere near Heathrow) is capable of. But with the greying of the pedia we need to cater both for those whose idea of basic accommodation is a room with a bed and for those who are looking for somewhere they can stretch out a sleeping bag.
One economy we can make based on last years Indian conference is that we don't need WiFi everywhere. A designated WiFi free zone with coffee is a useful part of a large meetup and it should save money if you can tell the WiFi provider to designate the hardest coffee area to provide WiFi for as a WiFi free zone.
What I'd like to see in a Wikimania bid is a commitment for e-involvement and making things as multilingual as practical. We could do this by working with chapters and other local groups so that for topics that people want to get involved in we repeat the session online and in requested languages with a translator working with the presenter.
WSC
On 27 August 2012 08:55, Tobias church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.comwrote:
On 08/25/2012 09:46 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
Maybe the question should first be: what kind of Wikimania do we want. Personally, I would be totally happy with down scaling the conference a bit. Less visitors (500-600), less events and less professional. Let it be more volunteer focused, and yes, perhaps also a bit more chaotic.
I concur and I'm glad you brought this topic up.
Wikimedians are not professionals, they are volunteers. Our community /is/ chaotic and a bit unorganized. It's fine if Wikimania reflects that.
That also means we can change the nature of bids: more back to basic and
more focus on location, venue and accomodation.
We should also focus on making Wikimania more affordable. If that means choosing cheaper locations that might be a bit less spectacular, that's fine with me. I've always thought the charm of Wikimania stems from its participants and not a particular venue.
Manuel (among others) is organizing WikiCon 2012, which will start in a few days in Austria. The fee is only 10 Euro for the full conference (three days), and that even includes meals and a place to sleep in a gym. Last year's WikiCon was fantastic even though there was not an exotic venue, a beach party, a wonderful port or a disco night in the center of a large city. I'm not saying that I don't enjoy such events, nor that they aren't parts of the positive memory I have of past Wikimanias, but expensive and exotic events and locations should not be considered a "must" for future Wikimanias.
Regards, Tobias
Ps.: The WikiCon conference for german-speaking countries is a great example of an event between the magnitude of million-dollar-events like Wikimania and zero-dollar local community meetups. They work great, help to get to know each other in real life (and to sort out differences) as well as exchanging ideas and bringing the movement forward. You should have a WikiCon in your country, too!
______________________________**_________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimania-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On 28/08/12 06:29, WereSpielChequers wrote:
No, travel costs are not a purely geographic thing.
And other costs too. The Pound versus the Euro versus the US dollar is a big factor. And since this two years away, who knows what the relationship might be. I believe that the Euro is 12% cheaper against the GB Pound compared to a year ago (a downwards trend through that period).
Hence, costs travelling from X to Y could cheaper (or more expensive) depending on the exchange rates in 2014.
Gordo
On 28 August 2012 06:29, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.comwrote:
No, travel costs are not a purely geographic thing. London is an unusually central location for the world's airlines, and also has a number of budget airlines with many routes. If everyone was driving across Europe to Wikimania then it would be logical to hold it somewhere near Crackow or Bratislava. But if most people are flying and many are doing so from cities that don't have major international airports then London is unusually, perhaps uniquely well connected.
Flying costs vary somewhat with distance, but more with competition, number of connections needed and standard of airline. There are disadvantages to budget airlines that don't allocate a specific seat and charge extra for baggage in the hold and even food, but they are usually cheaper. I know a family that have decided never to fly RyanAir again after not being able to get a block of four seats for two adults and two small children. But it is very cheap for one adult flying alone with just a weekend bag and no preference as to where they sit, and I suspect that describes the typical Wikimanian.
It all depends on where you are coming from, really.
Coming from the USA, Lisbon is no worse (and usually cheaper) than London.
South America; Spain is easiest.
Russia, Northern & Eastern Europe are often better served through Germany.
Africa generally runs through Paris,
Middle East/Asia/Eurasia often go via Dubai (a massive hub) which has strong connections to London - so from those areas London is usually the best choice.
In my experience of air travel; London is cheaper if you are on a long haul flight into the capital. If you fly to another EU hub and short haul from there it can get very expensive (if flying to the EU then onto the UK it is usually cheaper to go to another UK airport).
But at the end of the day - most places will have these costs. Getting to Washington probably cost a LOT for those travelling from Asia for example.
Tom
About 62, 000$ on Wikimania that last just about 1 week?
That's really huge, I think.
Upcoming chapters around the world will love to enjoy grants and funding from the WMF. Can the WMUK channel some of these lovely dollars into supporting upcoming chapters and WM groups?
If the WMUK hasn't yet finalized that amount for the bid, they I'm sure they're gonna reconsider.
I hope i'm not being nosy in this discussion. :-)
Rexford
On 8/25/2012 7:42 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 25 August 2012 20:28, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I just can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about 62,000$).
To be clear, that plan is still in draft, and that particular item has received plenty of opposition.
I am in favour of spending money on bids - it is necessary if we want to get professional quality bids. I am not in favour of spending that kind of money on bids, though.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
I am surprised at the reaction here. Is it so necessary for UK to have a bid or a winning bid at that, that you are willing to break convention, and spend this huge amount on a paid bid.
This is unfair. I don't know the history about the bidding process, but bids that I saw were written by volunteers, some with or without a chapters support, or even knowledge in some cases. What about competing bids, since they can't afford to hire a team to just make a bid that won't be on equal footing, should they just not bother? or ask for the same grant?
What if the UK still loses the bid? that would be donor money down the drain. If WMUK members personally finance this, it is one thing, but using this much money raised in the name of Wikipedia, to finance a bid for a single chapter to host the annual volunteer-run conference, seems very irresponsible, and antithetical to the entire spirit of a volunteer-run event.
Regards Theo
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On 25 August 2012 20:28, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I
just
can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about
62,000$).
To be clear, that plan is still in draft, and that particular item has received plenty of opposition.
I am in favour of spending money on bids - it is necessary if we want to get professional quality bids. I am not in favour of spending that kind of money on bids, though.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Would would money even buy at the bidding stage? Absolutely nothing, unless you count the venue?
When did the DC team book their venue? How much was it? (Guessing they got it for nothing, but probably wrong)
Joe
On 25 August 2012 21:10, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
I am surprised at the reaction here. Is it so necessary for UK to have a bid or a winning bid at that, that you are willing to break convention, and spend this huge amount on a paid bid.
This is unfair. I don't know the history about the bidding process, but bids that I saw were written by volunteers, some with or without a chapters support, or even knowledge in some cases. What about competing bids, since they can't afford to hire a team to just make a bid that won't be on equal footing, should they just not bother? or ask for the same grant?
What if the UK still loses the bid? that would be donor money down the drain. If WMUK members personally finance this, it is one thing, but using this much money raised in the name of Wikipedia, to finance a bid for a single chapter to host the annual volunteer-run conference, seems very irresponsible, and antithetical to the entire spirit of a volunteer-run event.
Regards Theo
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On 25 August 2012 20:28, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I
just
can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about
62,000$).
To be clear, that plan is still in draft, and that particular item has received plenty of opposition.
I am in favour of spending money on bids - it is necessary if we want to get professional quality bids. I am not in favour of spending that kind of money on bids, though.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
We had booked GWU by early November 2011.
The cost of the space was far from free, let me tell you. (That said, it was still heavily discounted.)
On Aug 25, 2012, at 4:13 PM, Joseph Fox wrote:
Would would money even buy at the bidding stage? Absolutely nothing, unless you count the venue?
When did the DC team book their venue? How much was it? (Guessing they got it for nothing, but probably wrong)
Joe
On 25 August 2012 21:10, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote: I am surprised at the reaction here. Is it so necessary for UK to have a bid or a winning bid at that, that you are willing to break convention, and spend this huge amount on a paid bid.
This is unfair. I don't know the history about the bidding process, but bids that I saw were written by volunteers, some with or without a chapters support, or even knowledge in some cases. What about competing bids, since they can't afford to hire a team to just make a bid that won't be on equal footing, should they just not bother? or ask for the same grant?
What if the UK still loses the bid? that would be donor money down the drain. If WMUK members personally finance this, it is one thing, but using this much money raised in the name of Wikipedia, to finance a bid for a single chapter to host the annual volunteer-run conference, seems very irresponsible, and antithetical to the entire spirit of a volunteer-run event.
Regards Theo
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote: On 25 August 2012 20:28, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I just can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about 62,000$).
To be clear, that plan is still in draft, and that particular item has received plenty of opposition.
I am in favour of spending money on bids - it is necessary if we want to get professional quality bids. I am not in favour of spending that kind of money on bids, though.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Joseph Fox josephfoxwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Would would money even buy at the bidding stage? Absolutely nothing, unless you count the venue?
When did the DC team book their venue? How much was it? (Guessing they got it for nothing, but probably wrong)
I'm not sure I follow, but, your assumption here is that the amount would pay for the venue, even before it is decided which city would host the conference? Again, wouldn't every bidding city needed to be afforded the same privilege? or is there actually a reason why the UK bid would be special?
Do I really need to point to Meta and every past wikimania budget, which hardly ever required an upfront amount for the venue, even before a venue was decided, or a bid was considered.
Regards Theo
Joe
On 25 August 2012 21:10, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
I am surprised at the reaction here. Is it so necessary for UK to have a bid or a winning bid at that, that you are willing to break convention, and spend this huge amount on a paid bid.
This is unfair. I don't know the history about the bidding process, but bids that I saw were written by volunteers, some with or without a chapters support, or even knowledge in some cases. What about competing bids, since they can't afford to hire a team to just make a bid that won't be on equal footing, should they just not bother? or ask for the same grant?
What if the UK still loses the bid? that would be donor money down the drain. If WMUK members personally finance this, it is one thing, but using this much money raised in the name of Wikipedia, to finance a bid for a single chapter to host the annual volunteer-run conference, seems very irresponsible, and antithetical to the entire spirit of a volunteer-run event.
Regards Theo
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On 25 August 2012 20:28, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I
just
can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about
62,000$).
To be clear, that plan is still in draft, and that particular item has received plenty of opposition.
I am in favour of spending money on bids - it is necessary if we want to get professional quality bids. I am not in favour of spending that kind of money on bids, though.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org