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: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to