Hi Siko, are you planning to copy the relevant comments to the grant application pages? The Committee will likely want to read them.
Pine On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Siko Bouterse <[email protected]> wrote: > Echoing Quim's thanks to you, bawolff! And I really appreciate the comments > you've made directly on proposals in past weeks, which does help them > improve. > > Good proposals take time to develop, and I expect that incubating them > longer in places like IdeaLab, where they can get more advice to help them > mature, is one way to ensure they contain all info needed for assessing > them as a grant proposal. I'm not sure this is something we could ever do > well without the community. > > I'm seeing more and more proposals for technical projects in IEG each round > (for the first time, nearly half of the open proposals are for tools). As > there seems to be increasing interest in using IEG to build tools, I agree > that we'll want to start thinking about better guidelines for this type of > proposal in particular. Will keep your suggestions in mind for this, and > happy to hear more as we work on improving systems each round. > > Siko > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Quim Gil <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Brian, I just want to say Thank You for the time you took going through > > the proposals and writing this insightful email. CCing Siko because, even > > if you particular comments about certain proposals are interesting, they > > can be taken as samples, and what really matters are your meta > observations. > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Brian Wolff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 10/10/14, Patrick Earley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > *(cross-posted to wikimedia-l)* > >> > > >> > Hello all, > >> > > >> > For our second round of Individual Engagement Grant applications in > >> 2014, > >> > we have a great crop of ideas. Wikimedians have dropped by to offer > >> > feedback, support, or expertise to some of the proposals, but many > >> > proposals have not been reviewed by community members. Over half of > >> these > >> > proposals involve new tools, new uses of our databases, or have other > >> > technical elements. Some will be hosted on Labs if approved. > >> > > >> > Members of this list may have key insights for our proposers. If > there > >> is > >> > an open proposal that interests you, that you have concerns about, or > >> that > >> > involves an area where you have experience or expertise, please drop > by > >> the > >> > proposal page to share your views. This will help the proposers > better > >> > hone their strategies, and will assist the IEG Committee in evaluating > >> some > >> > of these fresh new ideas to improve the Wikimedia projects. Working > >> with > >> > an IEG proposal may even inspire you to serve as a project advisor, or > >> to > >> > propose one of your own for the next cycle! Comments are requested > >> until > >> > October 20th. > >> > > >> > Tools IEG proposals: > >> > > >> > > >> > - IEG/Semi-automatically generate Categories for some small-scale & > >> > medium-scale Wikis > >> > > >> > < > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Semi-automatically_generate_Categories_for_some_small-scale_%26_medium-scale_Wikis > >> > > >> > - IEG/WikiBrainTools > >> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/WikiBrainTools> > >> > - IEG/Dedicated Programming Compiler > >> > > >> > < > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Dedicated_Programming_Compiler > >> > > >> > - IEG/Gamified Microcontributions > >> > < > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Gamified_Microcontributions> > >> > - IEG/Enhance Proofreading for Dutch > >> > > >> > < > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Enhance_Proofreading_for_Dutch > >> > > >> > - IEG/Tamil OCR to recognize content from printed books > >> > > >> > < > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Tamil_OCR_to_recognize_content_from_printed_books > >> > > >> > - IEG/Easy Micro Contributions for Wiki Source > >> > > >> > < > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Easy_Micro_Contributions_for_Wiki_Source > >> > > >> > - IEG/Citation data acquisition framework > >> > > >> > < > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Citation_data_acquisition_framework > >> > > >> > - IEG/Global Watchlist > >> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Global_Watchlist> > >> > - IEG/Automated Notability Detection > >> > > >> > < > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Automated_Notability_Detection > >> > > >> > - IEG/Piłsudski Institute of America GLAM-Wiki Scalable Archive > >> Project > >> > > >> > < > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Pi%C5%82sudski_Institute_of_America_GLAM-Wiki_Scalable_Archive_Project > >> > > >> > - IEG/Revision scoring as a service > >> > > >> > < > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Revision_scoring_as_a_service> > >> > > >> > > >> > Full list: > >> > > >> > - IEG Grants/Review > >> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG#ieg-reviewing> > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > <[email protected]> > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Patrick Earley > >> > Community Advocate > >> > Wikimedia Foundation > >> > [email protected] > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Wikitech-l mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > >> > >> A lot of these proposals seem poorly written from the perspective of a > >> technical proposal. Many appear to be more like sales pitches intended > >> for a non-technical audience (Which I suppose kind of makes sense, the > >> people who get lots of wikimedians to endorse them, "win"). > >> > >> I'm generalizing here, as it seems there's a lot of variation, but > >> there's a lot of "what I am going to fix", not "how am I going to do > >> it". They mostly don't have mock-up screenshots for the one's who > >> propose new user facing things, there is largely no schedule of > >> milestones, or even concrete minimum viable product specifications. If > >> they were GSOC proposals, they would largely be rejected gsoc > >> proposals. > >> > >> For example > >> [[meta:Grants:IEG/Tamil_OCR_to_recognize_content_from_printed_books]] > >> you can't even tell that they intend to create a website instead of a > >> desktop app, unless you read the talk page. > >> > >> Second, its hard to comment on the appropriateness of scope, since > >> there's not really any set criteria (That I've seen). In particular > >> its unclear what is considered an appropriate asking amount for a > >> given amount of work. For example, > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Global_Watchlist asks for > >> $7000, which seems excessive to essentially make a user script that > >> has a for loop to get the user's watchlist on various wikis. That's > >> the sort of thing which I would expect to take about a week. A very > >> experienced developer might be able to pull it off in a day provided > >> the interface elements were minimalist. (Although that proposal has a > >> small little note about being able to mute/unmute (non-flow) threads > >> on a per thread basis, which depending where you go with that, could > >> be the hardest aspect of the project). > >> > >> Similarly, people asking thousands of dollars so they can get > >> computers to test the user script in different OS environments seems > >> like an odd use of resources. No libraries available that have both > >> Mac and windows available (Guess there's a lot of libs that only have > >> windows computers). Even still, is multiple OS's really necessary to > >> do browser testing? Almost all modern browsers are cross platform. > >> Even IE can be run in wine on linux afaik. > >> > >> Then there's proposals like > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Dedicated_Programming_Compiler > >> , > >> where it appears the grant requester isn't entirely familiar with the > >> meaning of the technical jargon that is in use in the proposal. Which > >> should raise instant red flags. > >> > >> Now that I've complained a lot, I should say its not all bad. > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Revision_scoring_as_a_service > >> for example is a fairly well written proposal. > >> > >> Hmm, not entirely sure where I was going with all this. Looking at all > >> the proposals takes time. Maybe there should be some sort of minimum > >> quality standard (e.g. Having a roadmap) to advance to the next step > >> of proposal selection, and only ask the larger Wikimedia community to > >> review those proposals that were sanity checked to have at least > >> enough information on them that one could reasonably evaluate the > >> proposal. > >> > >> --bawolff > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikitech-l mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Quim Gil > > Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation > > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil > > > > > > -- > Siko Bouterse > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. > > [email protected] > > *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the > sum of all knowledge. * > *Donate <https://donate.wikimedia.org> or click the "edit" button today, > and help us make it a reality!* > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
