I also think that we should revisit this policy. Any IEG should have a feasibility plan. In GSoC / Outreachy usually the mentors are the ones guaranteeing code review. In IEG that guarantee should be provided in other ways, but it is possible to provide it.
For what is worth, https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreach_programs/Possible_projects are already defined as project ideas that "might also be good candidates for Individual Engagement Grants". I wish IEG "brokers" would subscribe to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/possible-tech-projects/ to find inspiration; projects listed there are going through a community filter that ;looks for wanted projects with a good size foir an IEG. On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Brian Wolff <bawo...@gmail.com> wrote: > code review is definitely a severe > bottleneck currently for existing volunteer contributions. > Yes, and addressing this problem is becoming a priority for the Engineering Community team. See/join https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T78768. But again, well planned IEG could avoid this problem entirely by finding the right partners. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
