User Details
- User Since
- May 19 2015, 7:31 PM (484 w, 23 h)
- Roles
- Disabled
- LDAP User
- Unknown
- MediaWiki User
- Mjohnson (WMF) [ Global Accounts ]
Mar 5 2021
Dec 3 2020
@Aklapper I think I understand now that you are just here to generously help me out with making this ticket functional. Thank you! I appreciate it. I just sent a message to #wikimedia-dev using Element. Thanks for that tip. Helpful.
Nov 25 2020
@Aklapper Thank you so much for your help with this, including guidance about what information to include. It seems like you were able to determine and describe the problem and how to replicate it. Is there still information you need from me about that at this point? @I_JethroBT has a better understanding of the issue than I do, so I'm including him in case he wants to add anything.
Nov 24 2020
May 21 2020
Dec 11 2016
Hi there,
Aug 26 2016
My preference for the URL remains https://projectcom.wikimedia.org. As an abbreviated handle, projectcom matches what we're already using in various places so the committee recognizes it and I prefer the consistency. This only applies to the URL. The fully displayed name on the mainpage, however, should be Project Grants Committee, not projectcom.
Aug 17 2016
MZMcBride, I've asked Katy Love about https://grants.wikimedia.org/. I'm not familiar with that wiki. I'll let you know what I find out.
Aug 16 2016
Program Officers are already using projectgrants and projectcom as handles to distinguish between general programmatic workflows, and committee-specific workflows, so it would be confusing to call the committee wiki projectgrants. Since there are five grants committees, grantscom/grantscommittee isn't specific enough. It could be called projectgrantscommittee... just seemed too long to us.
Sep 30 2015
Thank you!
Sep 21 2015
My apologies for a slow response on this thread. Thanks so much to everyone who has contributed comments either through Phabricator or in-person at Wikimania. Partially because of the feedback in this thread, we've updated the IEG eligible projects criteria with revised language that allows teams that can demonstrate capacity to take on projects that require code review and integration.
Jul 15 2015
Thanks for all of the feedback here. I've spoken with Siko about the background of the current IEG eligibility criteria for tech projects, briefly outlined in her comment above and in some of the pages linked to by Legoktm. While, as Bawolff correctly indicated, there is a dependency on Engineering staff that constrains how much wiggle room the Community Resources (formerly Grantmaking) Team has to revise the criteria in question, we are interested in doing whatever we can to support innovative tech projects coming from the community. Since the Engineering Department is undergoing significant change, there may be new opportunities we can explore. During this session at the Hackathon tomorrow, I'm interested in listening to any other ideas you may want to share on this theme as I think about possibilities for the future. Thanks again for all the ideas you've already shared here!