[Foundation-l] meta-discussion for new project proposals (was Proposal for new project: Faith Wiki)

Tue Jun 28 12:06:24 UTC 2005

Erik Moeller wrote:

> Sean Turvey:
>
>> Please be advised that I have posted a proposal for a new project. 
>> The proposed name is Faith Wiki. The address is 
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Faith_Wiki
>
>
> What is the justification for a new project?
>
> Best,
>
> Erik

I think it is time to have a serious meta-discussion regarding what it 
going to take in order for the Wikimedia Foundation to accept a whole 
new project, and what guidelines should be in place, as well as a 
roadmap for what would have to be accomplished in order for such a 
project to move from a "gee, this would be a cool idea" to "here is the 
server space, let's roll!"  By a meta-discussion, I don't mean on 
meta.wikimedia.org, but a discussion about proposal discussions.

The new project proposal page is getting swamped with ideas of varying 
qualities, and the only criteria that I see for getting culled from that 
page is strictly because it is an old idea... and that a rather 
arbitrary decision as well.  Other than Wikinews recently, I don't see 
much movement (or even desire from the board) to actually grant a 
project a green light to start up and be given a separate co-equal 
project space as a peer to Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, etc.

I guess I'm asking to formalize this process, and to let people trying 
to propose new projects realize just how difficult it can be to get a 
major project started.  Wikinews did just about everything right, IMHO, 
when that project proposal came about, and I would like to see that any 
new project that is started have to go through similar standards before 
it become an official Mediawiki Foundation project.

Steps I would suggest include:

1) Project description template filled out, including:
** More detailed project propsal made on a separate article on meta 
(largely done for most new project proposals now, although of varying 
quality)
** Sample "front page" of what the project would look like if it were 
given a green light.
** Licensing issues in the disucssion, particularly if not specifically 
the GFDL.
** Technical requirements, including what changes to software would have 
to be made to make the project successful.
** Funding sources to help with basic startup costs, or who might be 
willing to help sponsor the new project (goes with the earlier 
earmarking discussion on this list).

2) Sponsorship of proposal by MediaWiki users.  This is mainly to show 
widespread community support for the idea, and that it won't languish in 
lack of use once started.
** A "threshhold" value be established before projects can move beyond 
this point.  For example, 10 registered users agreeing to sponsor the 
idea, and > 60% favor vs. oppose (or some other figure... this is just 
an example).
** Advertisement of the proposal, on this list as well as in other 
forums and contexts.  Also... spamming discouraged when doing this sort 
of advertisement.  Try to search and find the potential community for 
the project proposal idea.
** Respond to comments regarding proposal

3) Review by "proposal committee".  This is a new step, but I am 
suggesting that a group of "veteran" Wikimedia (from all projects) users 
help review project proposals that get to this stage (having passed the 
earlier threshold requirements).
**Suggest to the project proposer ways to help improve the proposal 
submission, review technical aspects, and in general help clean up the 
proposal into something that can easily be digested by the board.  Yes, 
I am volunteering.  
**It would also be the job of this group to cull out and remove 
languishing proposals on a the new proposal page, subject to general 
concensus.  They should establish formal guidelines for what gets 
removed and potentially what can be reinstated.
**Establishing a new "accepted project" page to (hopefully) get wider 
review by the Wikimedia community of projects that have passed the new 
requirements.  These would be considered "serious" propsals that are on 
their way to become a new project, and should be put to a higher standard.
** The proposal committee would be doing some of the advertising at this 
point, including front-page meta links to the new proposal, and formal 
notification on this list (and other mediawiki lists, as appropriate).
** It should be possible for a proposal to die at this stage as well, 
although a good proposal with popular support should survive this stage.

4) Formal presentation to the Wikimedia board.  While board members can 
(and likely will) be involved in the earlier stages, this is the formal 
stage where the board gives official comment regarding the status of the 
project.  It can be sent back for more discussion, killed outright at 
the discression of the board, or accepted.

5) The project has been accepted and is a peer to existing MediaWiki 
projects.  Server space is found and content is being added to the new 
project.

---------

Any other ideas on what process a project should go through to become 
accepted?  What should the criteria be for being removed from the new 
project proposal page?  Do we want to encourage/discourage anybody from 
making these proposals?  What general guidelines should there be for new 
project proposals beyond those already listed on Meta?  How can we keep 
the board from getting flooded with new ideas, but have a chance to 
review really good new ideas?

-- 
Robert Scott Horning