This, all of this.
On 21/02/15 21:26, Brian Wolff wrote:
However that's not a reason to have no IEG grants for tech projects
ever, its just a reason for code review to be specifically addressed
in the grant proposal, and for the grantee to have a plan. Maybe that
plan involves having a (volunteer) friend who has +2 do most of the
code review. Maybe that plan involves a staff member getting his
manager to allow him/her to have 1 day a week to review code from this
grant (Assuming that the project aligns with whatever priorities that
staff member's team has, such an arrangement does not seem
unreasonable). Maybe the grant includes funds for hiring code review
resources (ie non-wmf people with +2. We exist!). Maybe there is some
other sort of arrangement that can be made that's specific to the
project in question. Every project is different, and has different
needs.
I do not think expecting WMF engineering to devote significant
resources to IEG grants is viable, as I simply doubt its something
that WMF engineering is willing to do (And honestly I don't blame
them. They have their own projects to concentrate on.). IEG's are
independent projects, and must be able to stand mostly on their own
with minimal help. I do think getting WMF to perform the final once
over for security/performance of a project prior to deployment, at the
end, is reasonable (provided the code follows MW standards, is clean,
and has been mostly already reviewed for issues by someone in "our"
community). At most, I think bringing back 20% time, with that time
devoted to doing code review of IEGs, would be the most that we could
reasonably expect WMF to devote (but even if they didn't want to do
that, I don't think that's a reason not to do IEG tech grants).
Code review is an inherent risk to project success, much like user
acceptability. It should be planned around, and considered. We should
not give up just because there is risk. There is always risk. Instead
we must manage risk as best we can.
--bawolff
I just don't get it. Why is there no support at all for funded tech
projects outside of GSoC/Outreachy, which have very specific target
audiences? Why are there only grants for non-technical things when the
technical is the biggest part of what actually supports the other
projects and allows them to grow over the long term, when the
non-technical projects need better backend support in order to truly
succeed, when there are so many things in general that need to be done
around wikimedia that volunteers need and want to do, things for sister
projects and multimedia and community interaction, that don't get done
because nobody has the time or resources to actually make it happen?
Things that the WMF wouldn't even know where to begin with, wouldn't
have the know-how to do themselves, wouldn't have the connections or the
languages for... and would never even prioritise to begin with?
What about these?
I'm actually doing an IEG currently and because of all this our only
recourse for the product part of the project is basically to make
template and gadget soup. Given the nature of this project, of course,
that might have been the most likely outcome anyway just because it's on
enwp and that's what wikipedians seem do in general, but so many other
potential projects are simply stopped dead, regardless of what their
potential or worth might have been.
There's limitations and concerns with any kind of project, doesn't
matter what it is. You should just need to have a feasible way to
address them, that's all.
Glargh.
-I
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
