Speaking in general (emphasis: I have not done a deep dive into the information presented in this specific scenario), I'm not a fan of requirements being sprung onto folks (this would include being sprung onto WMF staff) who have designed a project according to specifications that they thought they understood, and then after time has been spent to design a project according to the known specifications, the goalposts are moved, an undocumented expectation is cited as a reason for rejecting a proposal, or a new requirement is implemented, especially if the people planning the project are not given a window of opportunity to align with the revised goalposts or the new understanding of requirements. In general, I believe that surprises during review processes should be minimized, especially after an opportunity for revisions has closed. And I would hope that, if such surprises happen, there will be deep dives into the review procedures to understand what happened and why.
Thanks, Pine🌲 On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 8:29 AM Yaron Koren via Wikitech-l < [email protected]> wrote: > I've been mentoring Google Summer of Code projects for the Wikimedia > Foundation for over 15 years now, and in all that time, I don't recall a > technically viable project suggestion being rejected by the WMF. This year, > six were. [1] Three were rejected for technical reasons (a few hours past > the deadline, no microtasks yet) - which seems harsh, but those are the > rules now, I suppose. That still leaves the following three rejected > projects: > > - Agentic editing capability for Wanda [2] > - Improve Commons Android app using privacy-friendly edge AI [3] > - Querying of structured data for Wanda extension [4] > > Wanda is a MediaWiki extension that provides an AI chatbot, so all of > these are AI-related. I'm involved with the first and third one; the third > one was a last-minute substitute after the first one was rejected - we > thought that perhaps the issue with the first one was that it > related specifically to AI *editing*, so we switched to just AI querying > instead. To no avail, though. > > (And yes, the third one was ostensibly rejected not because it was AI but > because I was a listed mentor for two different projects - but I offered to > replace myself with someone else, both before [5] and after the rejection, > and got no response, so I'm guessing that was not the real reason.) > > The Wikimedia Foundation is free to set any rules it wants about which > projects to accept and reject. However, if the rule is now that no AI-based > project will be accepted, I think that should be stated publicly, to avoid > wasting potential mentors' time. And it should be clarified whether this > policy applies just to the Google Summer of Code, or also to other > mentorship programs, or even other things like development grants. > > [1] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/board/8423/query/all/ > [2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T414281 > [3] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T414881 > [4] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T415465 > [5] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T414617#11523658 > > -Yaron > > -- > WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
