On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: It's certainly unfortunate that we phrased our announcement in such a way that led people to think that, and speaking for myself I don't think that's actually the case. For my part, and I know I'm not alone in this, I've always considered every bid on its own merits. I've never given a bid special consideration because "it's their turn"—if so, I would have put my weight behind Toronto, a serious contender for the last three years running and a finalist every time. When I helped draft the announcement, I certainly didn't read that statement to mean that we would be giving undue preference to NA/EU bids for 2010. After four venue decisions, we know to expect criticism of the final choice—for numerous, conflicting reasons. Unfortunately, Wikimania can't be everything to everyone. What surprises me is that while I see a lot of outright attacks, nobody ever offers an alternative. Nobody's said "I've reviewed the bids, and given your criteria I think you made the wrong decision based on factors X, Y, and Z." Nobody's proposed alternative crtieria. Nobody's even found fault with individual members of the jury and their judgment. All I see is, frankly, a lot of whining based on their idea of what Wikimania should be, and where it should be, with those arguing about "where" being almost exclusively Europeans and Americans. Constructive discussion is certainly welcome, and Michael Snow has already started a new thread on the topic of what and why. These questions have been plaguing Wikimania since 2005, so I encourage—in fact, beg—everyone to weigh in on what they think it should be, and if you think so, just where we've gone wrong. Peace, wikilove, and all that jazz, Austin