On 19 March 2013 08:40, James Farrar <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps I'm being particularly dumb this early in the morning, but I > can't actually see why these semantics matter - certainly compared > with, for example, delivering a high-quality bid. > > On 19 March 2013 08:26, Charles Matthews > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 18 March 2013 23:16, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 18 March 2013 23:10, Katie Chan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> In this case, the bid isn't being submitted by volunteers and members of >>>> Wikimedia UK as part of Wikimedia UK. >>> >>> The bid is funded by WMUK, the bid team are operating out of the WMUK >>> office and the intention is for everything to be booked and paid for >>> in the name of WMUK. Explain to me how this isn't a WMUK bid... >> >> I am unfamiliar with the concept of a "WMUK volunteer". Wikimedian >> volunteers who happen to be in the UK may have no connection at all to >> WMUK, and throwing the phrase around is unhelpful.
In short, because the stakeholder analysis in the WMUK comms strategy seems to me not to have been implemented. A stakeholder analysis is not "semantics": it is being clear about the vague concept of "community". A comms strategy is what you rely on when you suddenly need people to turn up and back a major event. Not having an adequate one can bite you in the bum. Charles _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
