Howdy y'all,
Would anyone be interested in helping out with our bid to hold Wikimania in London in 2013?
We've got a couple of weeks to refine the bid page, and there's lots of little areas that need attention... a fuller description of the venue, more accommodation options, more information on travel in London, a section on GLAM in London, things like that, and I'd be very grateful for any time you might be able to put towards it. We have all the main things in place for the conference, just a question of writing it all up now!
Here's the bid as it stands: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013_bids/London
Here's some suggestions for things to do here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimania_2013_bids/London
Or another good way is to look at how things have been written up in the competing bids, e.g.: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013_bids/Hong_Kong
If you're interested, feel free to dive straight in or email meedsaperia@gmail.comif you'd like to discuss the bid. I should also be in #wikimania2013 tonight and tomorrow.
Ed
On 31 March 2012 22:10, Edward Saperia edsaperia@gmail.com wrote:
Howdy y'all,
Would anyone be interested in helping out with our bid to hold Wikimania in London in 2013?
We've got a couple of weeks to refine the bid page, and there's lots of little areas that need attention... a fuller description of the venue, more accommodation options, more information on travel in London, a section on GLAM in London, things like that, and I'd be very grateful for any time you might be able to put towards it. We have all the main things in place for the conference, just a question of writing it all up now!
The bidding timeline says:
"30 March 2012 (23:59 UTC): Bidding ends; all major information on the bid pages must be final."
Some of the things you describe as still needing to be added sound fairly major to me. Your bid page also says "This bid will lose its draft status over the weekend of the 31st of March." and that it will then be translated.
It sounds like you are a little behind schedule.
I think it is very unfortunate that the chapter has allowed two bids to be developed without any support, rather than picking one and getting behind it. We now have two bids that, to be honest, aren't particularly good (I know there are people that have worked very hard on both bids, but neither is really at the stage it should be by this point or has the team behind it that it needs). If we had concentrated on one bid and had had the support of the chapter, we could have had one bid that was extremely good. I think the board has let us down by failing to provide strong, decisive leadership.
I haven't looked in detail at what the other bids have produced, so it is hard to say what the UK's chances of winning are, but they are certainly lower than they could have been. If one of our bids does win, I'm sure everyone will rally round and make it a success, but we could have done much better.
Without commenting on any other point or expressing any other opinions wrt either bid, I don't think the board has let us down at all (and I'm hardly known for speaking up in defence of the board!). Having to choose between two bids from cities with strong Wikimedia communities, one of which was built by a sitting trustee, would put the board in a very difficult position, and favouring one bid over the other risked creating division in the community (and even the board itself).
Harry
________________________________ From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, 31 March 2012, 22:26 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] London Bid for Wikimania 2013
On 31 March 2012 22:10, Edward Saperia edsaperia@gmail.com wrote:
Howdy y'all,
Would anyone be interested in helping out with our bid to hold Wikimania in London in 2013?
We've got a couple of weeks to refine the bid page, and there's lots of little areas that need attention... a fuller description of the venue, more accommodation options, more information on travel in London, a section on GLAM in London, things like that, and I'd be very grateful for any time you might be able to put towards it. We have all the main things in place for the conference, just a question of writing it all up now!
The bidding timeline says:
"30 March 2012 (23:59 UTC): Bidding ends; all major information on the bid pages must be final."
Some of the things you describe as still needing to be added sound fairly major to me. Your bid page also says "This bid will lose its draft status over the weekend of the 31st of March." and that it will then be translated.
It sounds like you are a little behind schedule.
I think it is very unfortunate that the chapter has allowed two bids to be developed without any support, rather than picking one and getting behind it. We now have two bids that, to be honest, aren't particularly good (I know there are people that have worked very hard on both bids, but neither is really at the stage it should be by this point or has the team behind it that it needs). If we had concentrated on one bid and had had the support of the chapter, we could have had one bid that was extremely good. I think the board has let us down by failing to provide strong, decisive leadership.
I haven't looked in detail at what the other bids have produced, so it is hard to say what the UK's chances of winning are, but they are certainly lower than they could have been. If one of our bids does win, I'm sure everyone will rally round and make it a success, but we could have done much better.
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 31 March 2012 22:42, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
Without commenting on any other point or expressing any other opinions wrt either bid, I don't think the board has let us down at all (and I'm hardly known for speaking up in defence of the board!). Having to choose between two bids from cities with strong Wikimedia communities, one of which was built by a sitting trustee, would put the board in a very difficult position, and favouring one bid over the other risked creating division in the community (and even the board itself).
Division in the community is what we have now - we have some people working on one bid and some people working on another. That's divided. If the board had chosen one bid to support, we could have all worked together on that bid. That's undivided.
On 31 March 2012 22:57, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 March 2012 22:42, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
Without commenting on any other point or expressing any other opinions
wrt
either bid, I don't think the board has let us down at all (and I'm
hardly
known for speaking up in defence of the board!). Having to choose between two bids from cities with strong Wikimedia communities, one of which was built by a sitting trustee, would put the board in a very difficult position, and favouring one bid over the other risked creating division
in
the community (and even the board itself).
Division in the community is what we have now - we have some people working on one bid and some people working on another. That's divided. If the board had chosen one bid to support, we could have all worked together on that bid. That's undivided.
You make the assumption that the people who had worked on the rejected bid would have shaken that rejection off to give their wholehearted support to the chosen bid.
On 1 April 2012 00:38, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
You make the assumption that the people who had worked on the rejected bid would have shaken that rejection off to give their wholehearted support to the chosen bid.
If the deadline for bids has passed then the practical issue is moot, but so far as paid employees of WMUK are concerned I would hope they are above such rivalry.
On 1 April 2012 00:42, Anthony (AGK) wikiagk@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 April 2012 00:38, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
You make the assumption that the people who had worked on the rejected bid would have shaken that rejection off to give their wholehearted support to the chosen bid.
If the deadline for bids has passed then the practical issue is moot, but so far as paid employees of WMUK are concerned I would hope they are above such rivalry.
Crikey, a win for any UK bid would be a win for WMUK!
- d.
On 01/04/2012 00:50, David Gerard wrote:
Crikey, a win for any UK bid would be a win for WMUK!
And the community?
Gordo
On 1 April 2012 10:41, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 01/04/2012 00:50, David Gerard wrote:
Crikey, a win for any UK bid would be a win for WMUK!
And the community?
Well, *yes*, really obviously. However, the post I was replying to specifically concerned WMUK.
- d.
As Richard says, we took the position that we will support volunteer-led bids, but wouldn't drive one as a chapter. There are lots of reasons why it would be great to have Wikimania in the UK, but It's not something that is vital for our future as a chapter, and it's not something that's come up as a strategic priority for our development.
We still don't know what role Wikimedia UK would end up playing if one of the UK bids was successful and where the boundaries would lie between the bid team, the Foundation, and the Chapter. We would obviously be involved, but would need to be involved in a way which doesn't mean all our other work goes on hold for 12 months of Wikimania preparations.
Chris
On 1 April 2012 00:42, Anthony (AGK) wikiagk@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 April 2012 00:38, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
You make the assumption that the people who had worked on the rejected bid would have shaken that rejection off to give their wholehearted support to the chosen bid.
If the deadline for bids has passed then the practical issue is moot, but so far as paid employees of WMUK are concerned I would hope they are above such rivalry.
Paid employees of WMUK haven't been involved in either bid, that's part of what I'm complaining about. (Richard has been working on the London one in his spare time, but not as a WMUK employee).
On 1 April 2012 01:11, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Paid employees of WMUK haven't been involved in either bid, that's part of what I'm complaining about. (Richard has been working on the London one in his spare time, but not as a WMUK employee).
Should WMUK not be involved in developing a Wikimania bid? (I don't follow WM governance very closely, and may misunderstand that aspect of the Chapter's purpose.)
It's the Chapters role to support a successful bid - but the bids themselves should, we feel, be community-driven, not chapter-driven. The chapter has a policy that says we cannot do anything that a volunteer will do - we're here to support a volunteer-run bid with funding, advice and staff.
Richard Symonds Office& Development Manager Wikimedia UK +44 (0)207 065 0991
On 01/04/2012 02:20, Anthony (AGK) wrote:
On 1 April 2012 01:11, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Paid employees of WMUK haven't been involved in either bid, that's part of what I'm complaining about. (Richard has been working on the London one in his spare time, but not as a WMUK employee).
Should WMUK not be involved in developing a Wikimania bid? (I don't follow WM governance very closely, and may misunderstand that aspect of the Chapter's purpose.)
I've not been part of either team, though as someone who has been to three Wikimanias I've given some help to both. But then I've read most bids from the last couple of years and made suggestions or copyedits to practically all of them.
I'm not convinced that it is good for a chapter to host Wikimania, I think there is a significant risk of volunteer burnout and of costs falling on the chapter - though as things stand the UK can afford the latter. There's also the geographic argument, of the five venues 2008-12 two are in the Americas and the other three - Alexandria, Gdansk and Haifa, are all in this part of the world. So there is a strong argument that in 2013 Wikimania should go to the Far East, which is one reason why Hong Kong has frontrunner status. Hence my preference in the discussions last year that if we were to bid we should do so for 2014.
As for using chapter resources to win a bid against other chapters, we should remember the arguments going on about funds dissemination and centralisation. If the UK as one of the few chapters allowed to take part in the fundraiser were to use its extra financial resources to win a bid against other chapters, then there is a risk that some chapters, especially the losing chapters, would see more merit in a globally centralised fundraising model.
But this is pre-empting the discussions scheduled for our AGM - by then we will know if either UK bid has succeeded or if Wikimania is going to the Far East in 2013. If we don't win this year, and assuming Naples won't either, then if we want to bid for 2014 we should be in a position to put in at least one strong bid as strong as this year, and maybe stronger if the team can be kept and we can learn from the process.
WSC
On 1 April 2012 02:27, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
It's the Chapters role to support a successful bid - but the bids themselves should, we feel, be community-driven, not chapter-driven. The chapter has a policy that says we cannot do anything that a volunteer will do - we're here to support a volunteer-run bid with funding, advice and staff.
Richard Symonds Office& Development Manager
Wikimedia UK +44 (0)207 065 0991
On 01/04/2012 02:20, Anthony (AGK) wrote:
On 1 April 2012 01:11, Thomas Dalton<thomas.dalton@gmail.com**> wrote:
Paid employees of WMUK haven't been involved in either bid, that's part of what I'm complaining about. (Richard has been working on the London one in his spare time, but not as a WMUK employee).
Should WMUK not be involved in developing a Wikimania bid? (I don't follow WM governance very closely, and may misunderstand that aspect of the Chapter's purpose.)
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 01/04/2012 02:20, Anthony (AGK) wrote:
Should WMUK not be involved in developing a Wikimania bid? (I don't follow WM governance very closely, and may misunderstand that aspect of the Chapter's purpose.)
Job demarcation. WMUK may not take on a task that volunteer could do.
Gordo
Not... quite. I've been advising on both, as a volunteer, but I can't bring myself to openly support either (as a volunteer or a staff member). It's simply too tricky. Steve Virgin (Bristol) is a fantastic person and a board member with a great bid, and Ed Saperia (London) is a fantastic person and a personal friend with a great bid. It's further complicated by the fact that my wife was involved in the London bid before she was hospitalised, and that Steve is a board member. I honestly believe that Wikimania is best served by coming to the UK, but whether it hits the south-east or south-west is not something I can make a decision on.
I have been doing small 'wikifying' edits on each bid, and explained the process to each side (when they've asked) but nothing more.
To cut a long story short, I - and the chapter - will throw our support behind whichever UK bid gets the support of the judges or the wider community. I don't see it as rivalry - I don't think any of the four office employees do - but as an open process that gives us /two/ chances to win the bid for our nation, rather than just one.
Richard Symonds Office& Development Manager Wikimedia UK +44 (0)207 065 0991
On 01/04/2012 01:11, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 1 April 2012 00:42, Anthony (AGK)wikiagk@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 April 2012 00:38, James Farrarjames.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
You make the assumption that the people who had worked on the rejected bid would have shaken that rejection off to give their wholehearted support to the chosen bid.
If the deadline for bids has passed then the practical issue is moot, but so far as paid employees of WMUK are concerned I would hope they are above such rivalry.
Paid employees of WMUK haven't been involved in either bid, that's part of what I'm complaining about. (Richard has been working on the London one in his spare time, but not as a WMUK employee).
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org