On 10/9/07, David Strauss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > phoebe ayers wrote: > > > As a jury member, I do not remember any comments from you on this > > subject, David; perhaps I missed them. At any rate, what are you > > trying to accomplish by sending this message after the winner was > > announced, and not before when we were discussing the bids? > > Other people raised these objections during the bidding process; I > didn't have to. Even if no one had brought the issue up, everyone on the > voting team should have been aware enough of the problems to them under > consideration without further prompting.
And they were considered, just not to your satisfaction. I thought it was a foregone conclusion that Egypt's human rights record > would cripple the bid enough that it wouldn't win. There were no foregone conclusions; if there were, we wouldn't have had to have the bidding process, now would we? I *do* agree with you that we need to rethink weighting of the criteria, and have some criteria weighted more strongly than others in future. However, I do think the voting system is a great improvement on previous systems, and I continue to reiterate that community feedback is welcome. For many attendees I've talked to at the last three conferences, rotation was indeed by far the biggest concern for them; however the jury also chose to consider a holistic set of criteria. Also please note I'm not speaking on behalf of the jury in any way, just myself; I think we'd all agree that feedback is a good thing however. -- phoebe
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
