Talk:Conference Committee/Planning meeting 1

Why are you having this on the same day as a meeting elsewhere in London? Wouldn't it be sensible to have this as a breakout session at the Oak? WereSpielChequers (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Same day, different time. The idea is to have this meeting for a couple of hours in the morning, and e done in time to attend the meetup (perhaps not dead on 13:00, depending on time). There's never going to be a perfect date and time, but this is looking less imperfect than most—even if it keeps a few folks from their beer temporarily. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

OK see you afterwards. BTW a Skype conference call would probably work for this and enable more to participate. WereSpielChequers (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, skype conference calls don't work with more than about 5 people. The quality is too poor for it to be workable. It's also difficult with too many people because they end up talking over each other. An in person meeting is better. --Tango (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes but you can combine the two - an in person meeting with a skype channel for those who can't get there WereSpielChequers (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; I think Seddon is going to be participating via Skype, and I'm happy for one or two others to join in that way. For folks who are curious but don't necessarily want to be heard, I'll make sure any decisions or action points are posted here afterwards (and in theory, we could always webcast it). Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There are clearly quite a lot of people that can't make the proposed date. I've created a Doodle poll here. If you want to attend, please specify the dates you can make and we'll try and find one that suits as many people as possible. --Tango (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

• LoopZilla (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• the wub "?!" 13:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Fæ I would have liked to join a lessons learned discussion, but Sunday morning after a long and stressful day dealing with the AGM is probably an over-commitment for me. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• KTC Probably won't be able to stay the night after the AGM. -- KTC (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• It's the day after my sister's wedding, so I won't be able to make it. --Tango (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Is there any plan as to whom will say what? Or is that going to be ad-lib. I have some comments about the 2013 bid that I noted over the course of the bid process (as an outsider with minimal involvement) but it might be better for me to place them here on the talk page pre-meeting?? Also; is this focused purely on London or is the venue up for discussion (this is relevant as it forms part of my comments about the last bid).

I think essentially what my question boils down to is; is this a UK meeting about Wikimania 2014. Or a meeting about a London bid for Wikimania 2014? (I have no particular preference for either, but I wanted to be sure before turning up so as not to derail anything :D) --ErrantX (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom. In order: no, not really. Probably; I'm dragging you out of bed early on a Sunday morning so I'm not going to tell you not to speak out of turn—if you can't get a word in edgeways, catch my eye and I'll make sure you get your chance. :) Post them here or bring them up in the meeting (you're not the only one, but let's keep the criticism constructive). I think we were unwise last year to divide our attention between multiple, and eventually two, cities instead of picking one and I think it significantly weakened both bids; Ed is still waiting for feedback from the jury, but I wouldn't be shocked if this was a factor in their decision so this is a meeting of UK Wikipedians, but focused on a London bid—and yes, as a Midlander, it pains me to say that! ;) Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with the view that the spilt bids signfiicantly weakened UK's chance, and that we should focus on a single bid/location for 2014, when did we already make the decision that it'll be London? While I certainly have no problem with us going with London, I think the choice of location for the 2014 bid could actually be something that's to be discused and possibly decided at the meeting. KTC (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok well to dump my notes here for now:

1. Splitting the bids was a bad move, the lack of direct chapter support for any one bid seemed to undermine us
2. London seemed way way too expensive; both for accommodation & the venue (the IRC logs from the judging seemed to agree with that surmise too)
3. I think there was a bit of confusion over the format and the focus. Wikimania is an event for Wikipedians and whilst profile is good I (personally) felt the bid focused too much on it being a PR thing rather than a Wikipedian conference.

I'll just put this out there now; I've had here-and-there contact with two venues in Manchester and Nottingham that might be worth serious consideration (i.e. cheaper, masses of student accomodation, both cities currently have a lot of grant money for this sort of thing, more central, etc.). I never took them anywhere (well, we priced up Nottingham about 6 months ago) because the London bid team are super and that bid looked excellent. I also have a contact in Leeds (my uni city); the venue might be a little small for our needs but it was offered basically for free (staff and power costs). Obviously these locations also have big down sides too. But just putting options on the table! :) --ErrantX (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• There is room for discussion of the venue, but bear in mind that a lot of the groundwork has already been done for London. Nottingham is my home city, I'd love to have it there, but how many volunteers do we have there (I'm in Coventry)? Not to mention the lack of international accessibility—even East Midlands Airport is a trek on public transport, and you can't get much further than nearby Europe from there, so we'd probably have to bring most people up from Heathrow. Much the same applies to Leeds. I was always keen on Manchester, but Visit Manchester won't talk to me any more since Fiona and I decided to focus on London.

  All that said, I think debating the city at length is the trap we fell into last year. It's important we realise that there isn't an infinite number of places we can hold it and we need to make a decision fairly quickly so that we can get on with organising, because the city in which the conference is held is infinitely less important than the detail of the conference itself, and the more time we spend debating the former is less time we have for the latter. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree, which is one reason I don't want to derail anything too much. However, feedback from the Wikimania jury will be helpful; if their criticism rests on expense then I suspect that issue will persist into 2014... According to my rough figures, for example, it will cost about 30-40% less outside London. --ErrantX (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • p.s.Heathrow is far from the only option. And, indeed, avoiding it might be a bonus... the distance from Birmingham -> Nottingham is less than the trip from the airport to venue in Hafia 2011 :) --ErrantX (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Just to note (hopefully without opening up an unending debate again about locations): I was on the LOC for a 900-attendee, 4-day conference in Manchester a few months ago, in the same venue as was being proposed at Manchester Wikimania Bid. Details are at http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/nam . So I know that venue works well for large conferences - even the wireless connection held out against bandwidth-hungry astronomers! The major relevant downside, though, was the lack of available plug sockets in the venue... Mike Peel (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)