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