On 9/28/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The procedure as it is evidently needs work, since other bidders (e.g. London) are disappointed at their hard work being pretty much wasted.
The current system seems to ensure a lot of volunteer time and effort being futile. This is damaging to the project.
The problem this year was that there were so many high quality bids which made it to final consideration, each of which had substantial amounts of effort invested in them. In one way it's excellent that the jury is spoiled for choice, but it's indeed a shame to "waste" that effort. [1]
One issue is the time the process takes. At the moment the whole process, from initial bids to selection, takes only two weeks. To have a practical chance of success, a team really has to prepare all aspects of their bid before the first round officially ends, so it's not just the shortlisted bids who put in great amounts of effort.
Perhaps there could be another round of pruning between the original acceptance of bids and the final shortlist? There were only four bids in the shortlist this year but that number will likely rise as chapters take hold and local communities grow.
--- [1] Many cities who don't succeed may well bid in later years, and much of the work will carry over, but securing sponsorship, venues etc will often be time specific.