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,
Brian Wolff wrote:
Maybe the grant includes funds for hiring code review resources (ie
non-wmf people with +2. We exist!).
For what it's worth, you're exactly the type of person I would like to have
working at the Wikimedia Foundation. I love your posts here; thank you for
taking the time to
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
I agree with Pine. The way I read the IEG strictures was that they would
reject projects that required might need any code review at all; whether
that's true or not it definitely discourages some projects that might be
really useful.
As it stands, most of the projects I read through in the last
(Now continuing this discussion on Wikimedia-l also, since we are
discussing grant policies.)
For what it's worth, I repeatedly advocated for allowing IEG to support a
broader range of tech projects when I was on IEGCom. I had the impression
that there was a lot of concern about limited code
On 2/21/15, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
(Now continuing this discussion on Wikimedia-l also, since we are
discussing grant policies.)
For what it's worth, I repeatedly advocated for allowing IEG to support a
broader range of tech projects when I was on IEGCom. I had the impression
that
