@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.

@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.

@Dzahn and @Volans

Hi there,

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.

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.

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.

Thank you!

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.

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!