Cork/Santa Cruz applications submitted – Closing this phase

Unconfirmed email/Twitter messages from [AD_admin] and [LucasG] inform me that both Cork and Santa Cruz have submitted in time. In the case of Cork, it seems that RF has confirmed submission – I have no information about Santa Cruz.

I think we can close this phase. The next one starts on December 3rd, when RF will have gone through submissions and will tell us whether any of ours has gone through or not.

Meanwhile, we need to port our content from GDocs over to the platform for responsible archiving. There are two ways to do it:

  • a standard wiki. This is more fungible for the group, but it has the disadvantage that we would be publishing on the web the applications – and we had to surrender IPRs to RF. We could mitigate that by overriding the wiki's visibility settings so that only group members can see it, but I am not sure how Google's spiders will treat that.
  • an uploaded document. This is more secure, but less fungible for the group as documents on Drupal Commons are designed for admin use only.


RF confirmed SC’s submission too

And frankly, not sure what to do with the documents. Maybe RF has copy rights and we do too? Cloud we just ask?

Cork reserves its rights


I ran this by Cork…and they said they considered it a confidential document between them and RF… I think they are being sensitive (overly so) regarding the potential adverse comments if they do not get selected…

So, I can’t put up the Cork application.

I will of course revisit the question once the results are out.



Well, they were a lot more casual when the Matera application was shared with them! Could this be a sign that, if and when Cork gets funded, they plan to cut us off “and thanks for all the fish”? :smiley:

There’s no “they” in these things

I mean, it’s one thing to be glad and thankful that one (the technical people writing the application) can look at other people’s homework. And quite another for one (the politicians, or the technical people putting themselves in the shoes of the politicians) to have others look at “our” work. It’s not that I’m sure of any of this (about SC cos I didn’t even ask, or of course about Cork cos what do I know and it’s not my business), just an educated (but maybe wrong) intuition.

Cut off (again re SC, and again without me having asked)? Not with me involved. That much I know.

In general, it may be tricky to be oneself and part of an institution. But one (me, in this case) can start to fume out one’s ears. :smiley: #InGeneral

What’s done is done

Lucas, I would be surprised if the political level even got involved in this stuff. In Matera it’s the other way around: they don’t have the application. They don’t even have the password to the RF account (though they could retrieve it by clicking on the “lost password” link. The presumption is we do the technical work, they give us political coverage, we are in control.

But that said, if cities did want to cut us out there would be nothing we could do. This game was always based on trust. Which is why I am very surprised by Cork’s attitude: I would have understood a “huh, ok, but don’t show it to anyone, right?”. Telling Arthur, the guy who made it happen and did most of the work, that he can’t have what he worked to produce does not resonate with my idea of mutual trust and team work.

The reason why I would like that stuff on the table is that we might learn something by different reactions to different applications. Also – though Matera does not qualify – there is always the Bloomberg Mayor’s Challenge, and maybe we could re-use some of that material. Thoughts?