Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-29/Wikimania

Discuss this story

Manila

From having been involved (tangentially) with events held in Manila, it's a difficult venue for conferences. The security concerns (including around terrorist attacks specifically targeting events with an international profile) are non-trivial, and it can be expensive and difficult to get to as flight options from many parts of the world are pretty limited. The above article glosses over the fact that this town is in the Lake Como district, which has well-established tourism infrastructure, albeit not the kind of large hotels and public transit capacity which is desirable for something like this - I suspect that the organisers don't realise the complexity of what they've signed up to deliver. Nick-D (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without large hotels and public transit capacity I don't understand what you mean by "well-established tourism infrastructure". ResMar 05:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A whole bunch of towns close together with tourism as one of their main (the main?) industries. The page for the bid lists lots of small hotels, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well...small-scale tourism, sure: who doesn't want to visit a small hamlet in the countryside. But something on this scale? The second hardest part of this bid, after the installation of the WiFi, will be the amount of trekking that will have to be done to get people to and from overnight accommodations. The room occupancy numbers presented in the bid are....worrying optimistic. Though I do not know the culture I am skeptical that all of those mentioned apartment owners, for instance, will not charge many times the usual rate—on apartments they sublet on a monthly basis in the first place! ResMar 06:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I believe at this point that Nick-D is blowing Manila's purported "difficulty" with conferences out of proportion, and it seems that his tangential knowledge of organizing events in Manila has the unintended effect of painting Manila as being completely unsuitable for conferences. If it was that difficult to hold conferences here, then we wouldn't have conferences here to begin with, including this year's APEC Summit. We actually have the infrastructure—fine, it's not perfect, but it's certainly better than having nothing.

We had discussed how to handle security in and around the venues: this included coordination with the Philippine National Police, local city governments, the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority and other pertinent offices. During deliberations among members of the Wikimedia Philippines Board of Trustees on whether or not to support the bid, the issue of terrorism and post-election violence came up—first of all, I highly doubt Wikimania is of a high-enough profile that it would attract foreign terrorists let alone local ones, and second of all, the issue of post-election violence is highly unlikely given the relatively peaceful conduct of the last two elections, of which one was presidential.

In addition, as we have proven in our bid documents, flying into Manila is competitive from most parts of the world—the only "difficult" place for flights is by and large only South America. It is certainly easier for people to come here than it is for people to go to Esino Lario—we also brought this up at multiple points in the bidding process. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point isn't that Manila can't feasibly handle something like this (it can), but that it isn't the obviously-better option which the article is arguing. Apologies if my above comment is too strong. I don't think that the Lake Como area counts as a "hamlet" to be honest. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware the article was taking a pro-Manila stance. Tony (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esino Lario, Varenna and Lake Como are definitely not places of "small scale tourism". Esino alone has a historical capacity for several thousands people. I'd rather say Washington is a small-scale tourism area. :) --Nemo 19:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Separate point: on safety, there's been Wikimania in Egypt and Israel. Is Manila really much more dangerous in comparison? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think by far the least safe place with a Wikimania so far has been Washington, D.C.[1][2], and while Manila's crime rates are even higher (though lower than Mexico City), I think there are other points to consider, like the overall situation with law and order in the country, whether tourism is considered an important industry specially protected by authorities (like in Egypt), whether the crime is mainly between criminals (like in Washington) or spills over to the general population, whether the country has experience securing mass events (or security in general), etc. In all previous Wikimanias all of these metrics were satisfactory, but in both Mexico City and Manila they could be problems. Still, I don't want to judge without having been there myself, and I am hoping to come to Wikimania in Mexico. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the proposal of Manila (at least I have read it) and the bid reported several risks that I consider real "blocking" risks. A "may be" is like to say "no", a "potential sponsor" is like to say "no sponsor". Looking at the self evaluation [3] the same team says that there are no suitable accomodations around the venue, that there is to organize a transportation, that there are several potential delays (weather or changes in the political scenario) and the network capacity is not mentioned. Sorry but I consider more risky the bid of Manila that the bid of Esino Lario. Also for the transportation there are several kilometers to do each days cause the distance of the PICC from the accomodation probably with a real bad weather and in a potential dangerous zone. I suggest to read the bid of Manila (again if you have not read it). Anything else is a pure speculation. Regards --Ilario (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ilario, I don't know if your comments were made to make Esino Lario look good at our expense (and as it was pointed out, the article doesn't defend having Wikimania 2016 in Manila to begin with), but I really think you're seriously exaggerating some points of our self evaluation. To address your concerns one by one:

We mentioned that there were no dormitories around the venue, and that is NOT akin to having no accommodation at all. We in fact gave a list of nearby hotels, and hotel prices are lower in Manila than in many other major cities, balancing out the lack of dorms.
We offered to organize transportation to put attendees at ease so that they don't have to navigate Manila's public transportation system, which can be very bewildering for first-time visitors to the city. If they want to try it though, they're certainly free to do that.
You mention potential delays. We have mentioned in other parts of that same self-evaluation and elsewhere that we intend to find solutions to addressing them. Did you read the risk management section below our self-evaluation? We came up with a number of ways to address those concerns.
We were in initial talks with Smart Communications at the time to potentially sponsor the conference's Internet connection. The PICC, however, was unable to provide us information on their network, but we can mention that they suggested getting a telco to provide Internet connectivity because the center's internal network wouldn't be able to handle the load of some 2,000 devices (presuming 1,000 Wikimaniacs with two devices each) connecting all at the same time. That being said, PLDT (Smart's parent) is capable of providing very fast Internet—they did so at the 2012 Asian Development Bank governors' meeting, with average download speeds of 84.05 Mbps.

Now, I won't dispute the fact that Esino Lario won the bid, but I will continue defending the Manila bid if I have to because as far as I'm concerned, Wikimania is possible here, and from what I see here it's your comments that are pure speculation, not our self-evaluation. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out the following quote from the article: Members of the jury indicated in an email to the Signpost that Esino Lario had scored 116 to the Philippines' 109, out of a possible 140. While numbers can't tell you everything, it does indicate that it was a close contest. That said, as I'm quoted saying in the article, I thought making it into a purely Manilla vs. Esino Lario issue was never the right approach. CT Cooper · talk 21:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Also a silly point that things like "delays" can really happen anywhere, and the honesty of the self assessment can't really be held against them on such grounds. I still have bad memories of a trip to Halifax, Canada, that was plagued with chaos for example which couldn't have been predicted. Orderinchaos 22:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To take up Christopher Cooper's point, a number of people are wondering why it came down to an A versus B struggle in the end. The jury did have other procedural options, surely. Tony (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not perfect but better than other options

I like Esino because I could attend without having to resort to any kind of grant. We attended Wikimania 2014 in London. "We" includes my two sons, my wife and me. We paid our all expenses. We did not requiere any external financial support. We are a Spanish middle-class family. That means that we are in the first quintile of World's population in income terms -i.e. 80% of the people in this World deserve help more than we do. So we wouldn't have attended if it had implied taking somebody else's money. Even if we were entitled to it: the average fellow in Sri Lanka, Honduras, Rwanda, or the Solomon Islands needs that money more than we do and I find obscene to take any of that money away from them in order to get to a volunteer activity.
So when Wikimania takes place away from home, in Mexico or Hong Kong or Manila, we don't even take attending into consideration. On the other hand, those people who would need to be financed to attend an event in London, Esino (or Frankfurt, if you like it) would also required to be financed to go to Manila. The Global South is not a small place where you can walk from La Paz to Bujumbura in a couple of minutes. For most people in Bujumbura, an event in Brussels is easier to attend than one in La Paz. So placing events somewhere in the Global South doesn't make them any easier to attend. In fact, as many people from the Global North would require grant money to go and that amount would be substracted from the total ammount of grants, Global Southerners would end up even worse.
Esino is a small place. My guess is that many people will go by car, which is unsual for other Wikimanias. I don't think it's a perfect place but they have 13 months to improve things. The small size of the place helps to improve local commitment. I also think that getting volunteers from other countries will be easier there. They have a hard work to do, but it's feasible. B25es (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For yourself, that's fine. But what about giving some other parts of the world a turn? Europe/North America get a turn almost every time. Meanwhile here in Australia, the only one we've been able to attend without some sort of external financial support is Hong Kong - and even that is a 7-10 hour flight from major Australian centres. This is despite more than pulling our weight in terms of participation and achievement in Wikimedia terms. The issue is pertinent as this year, *no* scholarships were awarded to Australia, which makes it nearly certain we'll be entirely unrepresented at what is supposed to be a global event. By cycling it around different regions, it balances the load across a number of different communities - sure, less will attend from Spain, but more will attend from countries in the (relatively) nearby area. Orderinchaos 11:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to know that no grants went to Australia. You're right on that point. My idea is that almost nobody from Western and Central Europe should need a grant to go to Esino, so all that money should be spent on people that need the help. Giving money to me or to anybody in the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Belgium, to go to Esino (I'm comparatively far away and it's only a 15-hour drive) shouldn't be done. Holding Wikimania in Manila would mean that almost anybody willing to attend would need financial support. And I think that financial support is for something else. B25es (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the notion that "almost anybody willing to attend would need financial support" to attend a Manila Wikimania. When we planned the bid, we actually foresaw a good number of Wikimaniacs from East and Southeast Asia—people who for the most part don't get to go to Wikimania to begin with because of the stiff competition for scholarships—attending Wikimania here without needing significant financial support from the Wikimedia Foundation. If anything, we can't discount those people, and I'm doubtful that Manila is as difficult to get into as you suggest it is.

In addition, just to make it clear, one of the motivations as to why we launched the bid in the first place was because we know that if Esino Lario would win the bid, it would very difficult for Wikimaniacs from this part of the world to secure visas to attend. We've had Wikipedians denied visas by the Italian Embassy in Manila, and the visa rejection rate of the Italian Embassy here is, anecdotally, the highest of all of them (the French Embassy is second). You risk shutting out people from large parts of the world because Italy won't give them visas, and at this point I remain unconvinced by the ability of the Esino Lario team to actually secure visas for those who need them but live in countries where the visa rejection rate for Italian visas is high. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read m:Wikimania 2016 bids/Esino Lario/Visa? It has references. Why did you not post your concerns on the talk page? Do you have official statistics supporting your claims? --Nemo 19:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo, this was a concern we raised during the open question period, so yes, we asked and Iolanda answered the question from one of our core team members when it was raised. However, if you ask me, I find it inadequate that the only solution that I've seen to an Italian visa being denied is to simply go to the Swiss embassy and ask there instead. (If you've been denied a visa by one Schengen member state, as far as we know that appears in the SIS or other database for all other Schengen member states to see, and it gives them more reason to deny your application.)

That being said, while I don't have official numbers to back up my claims, Filipinos who travel regularly do talk about where we should get Schengen visas. In our case, the easier ones are the German, Dutch and Czech embassies; the harder are the Italian and French. If you think I'm pulling this out of thin air, I'm not. Now, I trust you guys can do better than what you already have, so please allay my fears here. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to four Wikimanias, including London where I was commuting in from my home over an hour away and Haifa where my accommodation was a coach journey away. My personal preference is for more compact events where venue, meals, accommodation and so forth are all in easy walking distance, but no venue is perfect, and as Haifa proved, you can have a successful event where coaches have to be laid on to get some people to their accommodation. As for getting editors from the Global South, Italy is in the European Union, so visas are going to be an issue. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been privileged to attend 3 WikiManias: They all required a "commute"
- Hiafa - coach
- Washington - 20-30 minute walk
- London - 30 minute walk

I don't see local transport being more of a problem here, than anywhere else. Accessibility issues need to be addressed as part of the conference organisation.

It is disturbing to see that there are no scholarships going to AUS this year. I'm not sure if there's a perception that first worlders can easily afford these trips, a lot of active Wikimedians are on very small (or zero) incomes, and attending a Wikimania, even without a flight, is an expensive business.

What is really great to see here is IMAGINATION. Setting Wikimania in a big city is inevitably expensive, noisy, smelly and tiring. There are many other venues which might not tick the box for the jet-setters amongst us, but are totally suitable for the purposes of meeting, talking and collaborating. Let us make sure this is one of them.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC).

Yes, having Wikimania in big city can be "expensive, noisy, smelly and tiring." Please know that there are people who find that kind of city environment much more stimulating than a beautiful countryside. - kosboot (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, most Wikimanias have been in big cities. 2016 is likely to be in a minority in that respect. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grant

I think it is a likely misreading of the email to suggest that the grant being sought is from PEG, it would seem that the orgnaisers are looking for a grant form elsewhere. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC).
- I've clarified this in the text, using info from a different email chain. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my original reading of the e-mail I received, but I was then explicitly told that this interpretation was incorrect by Young – a response which myself and a Signpost editor interpreted to mean that WMF funding might still be a possibility. In normal circumstances, I would have gone back and asked for clarification, but Young had declined to engage on the issue further for the moment, which was less than ideal. However, I'm still happy that one concern raised appears to have been resolved. CT Cooper · talk 22:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would also be interesting to know whether those commenting on the budget read m:Wikimania/Comparative#Budget, m:Wikimania 2016 bids/Esino Lario/Financial plan and the past track of those handling fundraising. Let's remember that we have an experienced grant manager here who is working for free to save WMF from another loss of half a million dollars and already secured several grants. --Nemo 19:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice vacation spot

A patently absurd choice for a tech conference but a lovely vacation spot, I'm sure. I expect this to be an enormous, ummm, clusterhug. Just hope the mainstream media doesn't notice how many donated funds are being poured into this fiasco. Carrite (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Wikimania is not a tech conference in my opinion. The tech conference is Hackathon and this year it will be held in Lyon, I give you the link because you don't miss it [4]. About the remaining part Esino Lario at moment assures more mainstream media than Manila can do. If your problem is the mainstream media I suggest you to look better in the network capacity of both places, I tried to understand the network capacity of Manila, but the bid does not report any data. Regards --Ilario (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Network

Again, it's strange to see that the article reports an old/invalid information (it's not the first time) and an old evaluation about the networking. I do not know the expert networker but if he evaluates the proposal of networking on the basis of the documents of the bid, he is evaluating something that is not old but really outdated. It's the second time that Signpost reports or uses invalid information, please update you. I suggest to ask to the organizer the updated information. In addition is the comment about the debt of Telecom a technical comment? Is like to say that the bid of Manila is risky because the conference hall PICC has been built by Ferdinand Marcos who realized an external debt of Philippine of $28.3 billion in 1986!!! --Ilario (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going off what Tony described to me as the network diagram. I am blind and there for can't see the diagram, and therefore was relying on Tony to give me the description, and failed to realize that there was new data to go from. Davidwilliam97 (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly is this "updated" information? If it's not made accessible, take what you get. We go off the latest information available. I note there's no link in your post, Illario, so still it's a mystery.

Dave, my description of the diagram to you was in great detail and done with great care, as you know. That is not relevant to Ilario's complaint that, magicially, we were meant to know they there was a privately held update. If this "updated" information really exists, the fact remains that the bid was what was accepted at the time. I note the jury's statement that they had "expertise". Did they properly scrutinise the internet specs? Tony (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think Ilario's point is that we should have gotten it from the organizers, but when we send questions to the WMF on these topics, we can only do so much if they don't give us any updated information. Bottom line: if there's actually updated information, it should be sent to us when we ask about it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The jury and the WMF were both sent detailed questions by the Signpost. If there were significant updates to the onwiki bid, they had the opportunity to inform us then. They did not. Tony (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed Ilario with a request for updated diagrams and text discussing the changes in the network topology.

Davidwilliam97 (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ilario has responded to my email, and I am working on opening a dialog with the organisers to obtain more information about network planning.

Davidwilliam97 (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility

Did you read m:Wikimania 2016 bids/Esino Lario/Location#Accessibility? --Nemo 19:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really need me to point out the obvious, glaring quote? "Not all venues are fully accessible." Alison, who is quoted in the text, read that as well. Yes, other people can help, but that's not a substitute for a fully accessible conference experience. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how your comment related to my comment or the content of the section I linked. --Nemo 19:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is yes, and perhaps you should read what you've linked to? The quote is from that section in the third bullet point. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes I did - that was why I had such major concerns about it! The page might as well have said "if you're disabled, you're not welcome". Orderinchaos 22:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being disabled myself puts this issue very close to my heart. If there is a public conference I really shouldn't have to get a disability car to drive me to certain places. Unfortunately the disabled have able-bodied people thinking that getting extreme help such as being driven in special cars is a good accommodation, but it really isn't because it makes the disabled person feel like they are inconveniencing others by making some driver deploy the disability car. What I would rather have is a completely accessible venue where any disabled person is able to get independently around with out crazy accommodations such as a disability car. For example for a blind person a good accommodation would be to have people able to do a first walk around the venue, and after that allow for the blind person to move about independently. Having these extreme accommodations really doesn't give the disabled community a good public image, and makes able-bodied people think less of the disabled. Davidwilliam97 (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to accessibility, I concur with Alison Wheeler whose negative opinion regarding accessibility was mentioned in the Signpost article. The notion that the WMF would host an international conference at a location that is distinctly incapable of even bare minimum standards of venue accessibility is grossly insulting and discriminatory to those with movement disabilities. Quoting the above linked section of the bid, "Not all venues are fully accessible". A requirement for any bid should be that all venues are accessible. Yet, at selection criteria the only mention that we see regarding disability is that the venue should be "welcoming" (and this is buried under "personal safety"). Concerns regarding movement disabilities have been relegated to a very subordinate consideration. Alison is right. Full access to venues must be an absolute requirement. Failure to be able to provide accessible venues absolutely must exclude any bid. Those thinking this location is acceptable should run this test; Would they find it deeply objectionable to place a sign saying "No Gays Allowed" outside the 4 rooms of this location that are not accessible? If so, they should be equally appalled at the idea of placing a similar sign outside those rooms that says "No Wheelchairs Allowed". Let's be frank...this is precisely what this selection jury is doing. It isn't enough to just provide transportation. I note with serious disappointment that meta:Wikimania Handbook contains absolutely no mention of accessibility concerns. They certainly seem to think that coffee is important enough to be mentioned in the checklist, but any mention of accessibility is beneath consideration. The attitude displayed is to say the least, disgusting. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those reading here may be interested in a post I made on Meta at Meta:Talk:Wikimania_2016_bids#Accessibility. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd

Sounds just as absurd as the choice of Sochi for the 2014 Winter Olympics.--Catlemur (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sochi "worked" (cough, ahem) only because they threw $50 billion at it. Figuring 75,000 people (that's how many the olympic village could hold, which is a conservative number as not everyone stayed there) in Sochi for the Olympics, and the ratio of event attendees to population of Sochi is 0.22 per. For Esino Lario, at a max attendance of 1000 (which again is conservative, based on the max the bid organizers state) the ratio is 1.32 per. I.e., Esino Lario's burden for hosting this conference is _six times_ that of Sochi. I see only disaster. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Practical comments for organizers

Having once coordinated an event of similar logistical complexity, let me make a few practical suggestions:

Success needs to be measured in part by whether everyone present has ensured that all attendees have had a useful and happy event. Pitching in to make the event productive and enjoyable for people with limited mobility, disabilities, or specific needs in regards to diet and accommodation is a part of the process. Supporting attendees like the disabled person posting above with what they need should be considered a serious contribution to the movement, just as valuable as creating content or doing organizational work.
Ms. Young will need full-time people on hand at some point in the organizing process to help with the sheer number of tasks and requests that occur simultaneously, in real time. Plan on the possibility that something may come up making it impossible for volunteers to fill this role, and that Ms. Young will need to bring in extra organizers to ensure that everything happens in a timely fashion.
Give Ms. Young the option to cancel the event altogether, with no hard feelings regarding the expense/inconvenience, if at some point in the process, in her judgement she finds the situation is not workable.
This event may or not be successful from a technical perspective; but from a social perspective, as a teambuilding exercise, it could be quite promising. It will provide a much-needed reality check to those who think that community cohesion can be attained simply by means of data, web design, and online text.
Bringing large numbers of strange males into direct personal contact with local women is one way to test for how civilized your organization is, and how well it disciplines itself. Barbarian hordes, or welcome guests? This will be a defining moment for how the organization presents itself to the world. A critical measure of success is whether Wikipedians turn out to be considerate guests who are welcome to return. --Djembayz (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to provide my networking knowledge to make the technical side of the event a success.

Davidwilliam97 (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accommodations seem seriously problematic

The final attendance of Wikimania 2014 was 1520. I understand there are peaks and valleys in the attendance profile, and not all 1520 were present at any one time. That said, the idea that the accommodations profile for this location can handle Wikimania is so rosy in its expectations as to be absurd. Fully half of the bed requirements are expected to be filled by individual, private apartment owners? You would have better luck herding feral cats. Further, the rosy expectation that all hotel rooms will be available for the event is equally absurd. Unless the WMF contracts every room in this rosy picture, and agrees to be held to pay for those rooms in the event they are not used (for whatever reason) this lofty notion that 100% of rooms in or "nearby" (40 minutes? Nearby? 80 minutes worth of commute to the conference every day? You serious?) are going to be available is laughable. Even if all of the beds are reserved for Wikimania, it is still quite possible this event will exceed that bed requirement, since the last European Wikimania DID exceed it. The hard part about this is there is no fixing it. There's no other rooms that might be available, no uncounted nearby hotels or anything to fill in gaps. If the numbers get large, the conference is doomed. And that's just the accommodations front. There are other serious shortcomings to this site that have apparently been completely overlooked or at least grossly understated by the jury. I wonder what, if any, qualifications the jury has in conference management. Utterly stunned, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: Several thoughts here (in my personal capacity, not Signpost). First, the one organizing the private accommodations is from Esino Lario and has extensive connections with the people there. Second, that's kind of the point. The bed numbers will forcibly limit the number of attendees. Organizing the commutes is going to be a real fun time for someone. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've been able to discern from the bid, there is no one organizing the commutes. Attendees will rely on public transport or car to get to the conference venues. Apparently there is a serious dearth of parking, so car transport seems at best highly problematic. At a bare, bare minimum there needs to be dedicated free shuttles from accommodations in "nearby" (again, 40 minutes isn't nearby) to conference venues. There is no mention of any plans to do this in the bid.
If a suitable bid is not available among the bids submitted, the jury should re-open the bidding process rather than accept a location with such serious limitations as this one. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of my concerns also. 2011 Haifa solved the problem of further away accommodations by putting on a bus, but doing that here would result in extremely inconvenient commutes and shuttle runs as the bus whittles around local streets dropping people off - had this experience myself a few times coming back late from tours in Australian cities where every 2-3 people are staying at a different hotel. And public transport is fine for those who are used to it in their home country (I practically think in it and can adjust to anything with a few hours' exposure), but I know many people who would have difficulty with this, especially in a foreign language in an unfamiliar environment. Wikimania events tend to go late, and public transport doesn't - also people may be intoxicated at the end of them. I'd hate to think what sort of liability insurance the event will need to take out to cover these sorts of eventualities across hundreds of people. Orderinchaos 20:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Orderinchaos: A more likely possibility in my mind is that the events won't be able to go late. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approval

Final review and approval of the Wikimania Jury decision is done by me, in my role as Chief of Finance and Administration of the Wikimedia Foundation, with support from Ellie Young. The Board does not currently have a role in approving the location of Wikimania.GByrd (WMF) (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GByrd (WMF): Let us all hope that you seek counsel of independent experts in the field of conference management prior to making a final decision. Let us all hope you choose not to discriminate against those people with mobility limitations. See Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-29/Wikimania#Accessibility above. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I received the information that the Board would make a final decision on the location of Wikimania from the Signpost. I don't know where the Signpost has received this information from, though I have to say, clear communication from the WMF has been lacking at times. Nevertheless, I'm glad clarification has now been provided - I'll stick by my statement in the article, but replace "Board" with "vetting process by the WMF". CT Cooper · talk 21:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong 2013

After reading this Signpost article, I asked our friends at Wikimedia Hong Kong about the "still-unresolved questions of financial probity". (I have not been involved with WMHK myself since late 2013.) I was told that the final accounts of Wikimania 2013 had not been made public for legal reasons. This is because some invoicing of Wikimania 2013 expenses had spilled over into FY 2014-15, and according to company law in Hong Kong it is malpractice to publish any statements of accounts before they have been externally audited. Hence sadly WMHK is not allowed to publish the final accounts of Wikimania 2013 until the 2015 audit cycle is over. The WMF is fully aware of the situation, but for reasons above they may not publish the draft financial statements either. Der yck C. 15:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deryck, thank you for this update. We look forward to perusing the full and final accounts as soon as possible after the end of the 2015 audit cycle. Tony (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]