On 9/29/06, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
2006/9/29, Gianluigi Gamba gigamb@tin.it:
Gatto Nero, I understand your disappointment, but
- disappointing 7 teams out of 8 was unavoidable;
- the jury decided legitimately taking into account all the available
information they had - they have the right and the duty to consider geo-political strategies for better achieving the goals of the Foundation. And I might be wrong, bringing access to the free knowledge where such free knowledge is somehow obstacled is one of them.
suspicious innuendos about how the decision has been taken aren't of any help for anyone.
Should we deny that Taipei has been shortlisted with no secure sponsorship at all? (Just read what their bid said about sponsor at the time of the shortlisting decision: "The bidding team has contacted several potential sponsors. Some of them have shown great interest in sponsoring Wikimania and covering the core expenses in total on venue, accommodation, and catering. If Taipei is selected as the host city for Wikimania 2007, the detailed sponsorship arrangement will be finalized. According to our conservative estimation, local sponsorship will be no less than NT$1,500,000 (US$45,600+)." http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimania_2007/Taipei&oldid=... ) Why then include Taipei and exclude the other? On which basis?
I don't recall any bid including signed sponsorship contracts; so in every case sponsorship was in some way "not fully secure". Sponsorship was also only one of many factors in the decisions (and conspiracy theories aside, it never seemed like the most important one).
Should we deny that sj said Taipei was chosen 'cause "in the end they had the most surplus sponsorship, in fact"?
Out of context. Taipei was not chosen "because" of sponsorship, at least that was not the deciding factor for me, though (see above) that was one of the factors considered for every bid.
The above quote (I did not say 'because') was in response to the claim that Turin had full sponsorship, unlike other bids; when in fact it was not the only bid with full sponsorship (and in some ways that bid had less sponsorship than Taipei's; cf. breakfasts). Again, beyond noting the bids for which all major costs were covered, the specifics of sponsorship amount or surplus was not a deciding factor in the discussion.
Should we deny that this decision caused a rift and quite a fight between the components of the jury?
It's funny, it caused a rift a day and a half after the decision, after a lot of emotional comments from the community; it did not during the jury discussion.
-- SJ