On Thu, September 28, 2006 12:07, David Gerard 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.
and
The current system seems to ensure a lot of volunteer time and effort being futile. This is damaging to the project.
Coming a little late to this discussion, could I (as one of the leads on the London bid) say that (a) I don't see the need for a bidding process as at all 'damaging' nor, other than the first few hours after the decision was announced am I that disappointed. Yes, the work is 'wasted' by some views, but much of it will get recycled into other projects (the schools outreach and community outreach programmes we had been planning are still likely to go ahead in some form, for instance) and if you think we were depressed be glad you weren't Paris at the latest declaration of the city to host the Summer Olympics in 2012! So far as I am concerned I am happy that Taipei will be hosting in 2007 and wish them well.
One thing I would definitely say though is that this process did point up a few things that need sorting before the next city is chosen.
1. Travel costs; should be researched centrally by WMF or someone independent from all the bids. It was clear that this caused great friction in this year's bids as Taipei - by their own admission - used this year's prices without taxes and surcharges even though actual-date flight information and charges were available and used by other bids. This meant that the bids information was clearly biased and inconsistent and could mislead the analysts.
2. What is the *point* of Wikimania? Is it just for editors of Wikimedia projects? Is it for technical/academic purposes? Is is (as we in London had planned) a way to expand the 'reach' and use of the Wikimedia projects to the wider population and not just those already in the FLOSS/wiki sphere?
3. Extending from both of these points is that of who the attendees are; the demographics of our editors and how much disposable income they have to be able to fly around the world. In essence this is an old-fashioned network routing calculation as whilst some people may be expensed to attend Wikimania (the board, for example, and some presenters) most attendees aren't and if we aim for 'free and open source' then we should also aim for 'cheap and easy travel' too.
4. A last thought on location is the one of language and locality. The nationality of the host location and its 'default language' don't have that much effect on the conference itself - our working language is english, after all - but they do on the attendees ability to travel in-country and enjoy anything the location might offer outwith the conference.
Could I also suggest that we should be seeking an 'independence of view' from all people concerned with deciding on a venue or employees of same. Brad's support for Torino during the selection period, and Jimbo's recent comment here are, to my mind, very out of place and could easily suggest to many that there is pressure being brought on them.
I was dishearted, indeed, to see that people were making suppositions about different candidate cities external to the information those cities made available about their offerings and that - if geographical considerations are to form a part of the decision-makiong process - they need to be clarified in advance and applied equally.
Alison Wheeler