[Foundation-l] Taipei chosen to host Wikimania 2007

[Brad Patrick]

On 9/29/06, Alison Wheeler <wikimedia at alisonwheeler.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

Whether or not the data were or were not biased or inconsistent, they
are certainly subject to change, gas prices, politics, etc.

> 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?
>

This is the most poignant criticism of the process.  You are exactly
right.  What the purpose of a gathering is will change over time, as
WM has - WM05-06-07.  It is certainly not for the convenience of the
majority of editors.  It is, apparently in 2007, a "bold move" and
"evangelical" for a huge population of users who are on the rise.  But
yes, the point is, this discussion has not reached consensus.

> 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.
>

See above.  NP complete problems are notoriously difficult to solve. =)

> 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.
>

We shall see how that works out.

> 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.
>

Third-person use alert:

Brad commented that the Torino bid looked great.  Please note,
however, the following:

a) Brad was *never* asked - not *once* to have any input in the
process by any member of the community, board member, or jury member.
Had I not been following along on the wiki myself, I would never had
known about the selection process, deadlines, applicants, finalists,
or winner.  Does *that* strike you as odd?

b) Brad explicity understood this process to be a *community* process
(the merits of which we - and do - disagree about) - see above - but
consider the response if he jumps in and says "I'm running this now".
/me doesn't think that would be acceptable.

c) So long as there was not rampant fraud or other evidence of
hijacking, which judging by the fall out might not be a clear answer,
why should this not be considered to be an acceptable community
process?  If you are suggesting that anything Jimbo or I said to
anyone had an effect, please show me where to look for its effect,
because it sure isn't in the result.

> 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.
>

Which "people" were making what suppositions?  I don't understand the
implication you are trying to reach, save for your feeling screwed.
As for me, I have never been to any of the *applicant* cities, much
less finalists, except Orlando, FL.  If you want to know about the
United States, I'm your man.  I am very widely traveled on this
continent.  If you want to know about elsewhere, ask Jimbo.  He's does
laps around other world travelers.  But how external knowledge of a
place fits in to your argument, sorry, does not compute.

> Alison Wheeler


-- 
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
bradp.wmf at gmail.com
727-231-0101