Responses to BAWolf inline. On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Brian Wolff <bawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/21/15, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In general WMF has a conservative grant policy (with the exception of > IEG, > > grant funding seems to be getting more conservative every year, and some > > mission-aligned projects can't get funding because they don't fit into > the > > current molds of the grants programs). Spontaneous cash awards for > previous > > work are unlikely. However, if there is an existing project that could > use > > some developer time, it may be possible to get grant funding for future > > work. > > > > [Rant] > > I find this kind of doubtful when IEG's (which for an individual > developer doing a "small" project is really the type of funding that > applies) have been traditionally denied for anything that even > remotely touches WMF infrastructure. (Arguably the original question > was about toollabs things, which is far enough away from WMF > infrastructure to be allowed as an IEG grant, but I won't let that > stop my rant...). Furthermore, it appears that IEGs now seem to be > focusing primarily on gender gap grants. > Couple quick clarifications: 1. There have been many IEGs that focus on tool development, including those from the most recent round <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG#ieg-engaging>. There's no "tradition" of denying software projects: they're quite well represented among completed IEG projects too <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:IEG/Proposals/Completed>. In the past, there have been concerns from members of Product/Engineering that IEGs would divert resources from established development priorities, so projects that rely on MediaWiki integration were sometimes a tough sell. 2. IEG accepts applications twice a year; this coming round (April) the focus will be on gender-gap themed projects. The focus of the September 2015 round, if there is one, has not been established yet. But it's unlikely to be gender gap. > > I find it odd, that we have grants through GSOC and OPW to people who > are largely "newbies" (although there are exceptions), and probably > not in a position to do anything "major". IEG provides grants as long > as they are far enough away from the main site to not actually change > much. But we do not provide grants to normal contributors who want to > improve the technology of our websites, in big or important ways. > That would be totally awesome. > Ostensibly this is done in the name of: > >Any technical components must be standalone or completed on-wiki. > Projects are > >completed without assistance or review from WMF engineering, so MediaWiki > >Extensions or software features requiring code review and integration > cannot be > >funded. On-wiki tech work (templates, user scripts, gadgets) and > completely > >standalone applications without a hosting dependency are allowed. > > Which on one hand is understandable. WMF-tech has its own priorities, > and can't spend all its time babysitting whatever random ideas get > funded. So I understand the fear that brought this about. On the other > hand it is silly, since a grant to existing tech contributors is going > to have much less review burden than gsoc/opw, and many projects might > have minimal review burden, especially because most review could > perhaps be done by non-wmf employees with +2, requiring only a final > security/performance sign off. In fact, we do already provide very > limited review to whatever randoms submit code to us over the internet > (regardless of how they are funded, or lack thereof). If IEG grants > were allowed in this area, it would be something that the grantee > would have to plan and account for, with the understanding that nobody > is going to provide a team of WMF developers to make someone else's > grant happen. We should be providing the same amount of support to IEG > grantees that we would to anyone who submitted code to us. That is, > not much, but perhaps a little, and the amount dependent on how good > their ideas are, and how clean their code is. > > That would be totally awesome. > > [End rant] > > Politically, I think its dangerous how WMF seems to more and more > become the only stakeholder in MediaWiki development (Not that there > is anything wrong with the WMF, I just don't like there being only 1 > stakeholder). One way for there to be a more diverse group of > interests is to allow grants to groups with goals consistent with > Wikimedia's. While not exactly super diverse (all groups have similar > goals), at least there would then be more groups, and hopefully result > in more interesting and radical projects. > > --bawolff > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > -- Jonathan T. Morgan Community Research Lead Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> jmor...@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
