Some interesting comments here!
First of all the idea of WMUK supporting the bid has been chewed over by the board for many months. In the end they agreed to support the bid.
Wikimania bids have not come from chapters traditionally but from volunteers in the local community. The support of the local chapter, if there is one, is seen as a plus.
If the bid is successful we will work out a way of balancing the support the chapter can give with the desires of the independent bidding team. As Chris says this has been harmonious so far and we have offered them space in the office when they needed it.
So beyond that there are no plans. Obviously we have been thinking about options and talking to previous hosts and the foundation about what would be good practice.
But get involved!
It isn't the Olympic but it would be BIG. Taking off my CEO at I will be lobbying for WIkimania only cycle lanes between the Barbican and the office,
Jon
On 19 March 2013 08:52, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.comwrote:
On 19 March 2013 08:40, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm being particularly dumb this early in the morning, but I can't actually see why these semantics matter - certainly compared with, for example, delivering a high-quality bid.
On 19 March 2013 08:26, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 18 March 2013 23:16, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 March 2013 23:10, Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
In this case, the bid isn't being submitted by volunteers and members
of
Wikimedia UK as part of Wikimedia UK.
The bid is funded by WMUK, the bid team are operating out of the WMUK office and the intention is for everything to be booked and paid for in the name of WMUK. Explain to me how this isn't a WMUK bid...
I am unfamiliar with the concept of a "WMUK volunteer". Wikimedian volunteers who happen to be in the UK may have no connection at all to WMUK, and throwing the phrase around is unhelpful.
In short, because the stakeholder analysis in the WMUK comms strategy seems to me not to have been implemented. A stakeholder analysis is not "semantics": it is being clear about the vague concept of "community". A comms strategy is what you rely on when you suddenly need people to turn up and back a major event. Not having an adequate one can bite you in the bum.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org