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

Tue Jun 28 23:43:34 UTC 2005

Though kind of wary of new projects, I totally welcome any efforts 
suggested to clarify this page, if this help better studying projects 
supported by the community. More organisation on the topic can't be 
wrong ;-)

Ant

Robert Scott Horning a écrit:
> 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?
> 