[Foundation-l] A question for the Wikimania jury

[phoebe ayers]

That was most definitely not my implication -- all the bids were quite
welcome and were carefully considered. Rather:

a) there were four bids this year;
b) the jury chose what they felt was the best one, according to the
list of criteria on meta
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2009/Judging_criteria, which
lists cost of travel for attendees and rotation as two points to
consider out of a total of fourteen) and the reasons listed in the
announcement letter;
c) since the bid that was chosen was from South America, bids from
other locations are most welcome for the next conference.

Nothing more, nothing less. Since according to the ground rules of our
bidding system, places that do not bid are not considered, this last
point is after all rather obvious.

-- phoebe

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
> That carries with it the implied statement that strong bids from such
>  places would have been unwelcome from the very start for 2009's
>  Wikimania, which is troubling. If that's not the case, please let me
>  know. I'm certainly not saying that BA had a weak bid; from what I've
>  seen of it, I don't think it was too bad. Were the jury to have
>  addressed the concerns regarding the high relative weight that
>  location has compared to it's actual level of importance when compared
>  to other factors, and still chosen BA on its merits, I'd be OK with
>  that; I just feel that those concerns were not addressed.
>
>  -Dan
>
> On Mar 30, 2008, at 10:35 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>
>  >  and also acknowledge that there are a lot of
>  > people who would like to see another Wikimania in Europe or North
>  > America -- and that thus strong bids from those places would be
>  > welcome for 2010's Wikimania.
>