Everyone knows that when bidding there is a lot of work to be done that may not produce your desired result, its also common for there to be multiple bids. Something that is being missed is that the bidding process isnt a waste of effort, in creating a bid you also create contacts and connections that will serve the community into the future.
Yes Ziko the wording is unhappy because I'm unhappy with the process and there is nothing public about Montreal even being on the radar for Wikimania, A 2011 bid isnt on the radar for selection just like https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2008/Perth isnt on the radar either. On 6 October 2015 at 07:18, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: > Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > >I, for one, am immensely grateful that you and your team (and Manilla's > >just as much) chose to start such a hard endeavor for the community's > >benefit! I really wish that communications and timing had been better > >so that neither of your teams ended up wasting any effort too early (no > >doubt you'll be contacted for future years as both locations are > >desirable and your willingness to host is now known). > > > >I know that the steering committee contacted our team (tentatively, very > >early in the year) in part because they were aware that we were already > >fully set to host Wikimania in 2017 with the groundwork for our hosting > >having started in 2010, and most of our preparations still usable (and, > >I expect, an opportunity to hold the first Wikimania in a Francophone > >location played a part). It's clear to me the steering committee > >dropped a ball in not noticing that both of your teams had started > >working on bids in time to communicate with you. > > > >That said, this kind of wasted effort is - from what I understand - the > >very reason why the process needed changing. Even if three teams bid > >for 2017, two of them would necessarily have wasted the tremendous work > >that goes into preparing a bid - including the credibility cost of long > >talks with venue and sponsors that turn out to a miss and the morale hit > >of loosing in a bidding process. I suppose I'm a bit "glad" that the > >leak occured before our team was ready to make the official announcement > >because - if nothing else - this will prevent that waste to have been > >even worse. > > This reads a bit strangely to me. You seem to suggest that bids can be > worked on for many years: in this case, saying that planning for Montreal > started in 2010 for an eventual 2017 bid. However, you continue on to > write that it's wasted effort if a bid fails in a particular year. > Wouldn't failed bids be re-usable in subsequent years? > > My guess is that sponsors and venues are capable of understanding a > bidding process, so long as it's appropriately communicated to them. > > MZMcBride > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > -- GN. Vice President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
