On Feb 12, 2015 1:11 PM, "Liam Wyatt" <liamwyatt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear GLAMWiki-verse, 
>
> [tl;dr Seeking feedback. Please read the GWT 2.0 grant application draft before I submit it officially: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Europeana/GLAMwiki_Toolset ]
>
> As you're aware, within Europeana I (and MANY others) have been working on building a major grant application to the Wikimedia Foundation to continue development of the GLAMwiki Toolset. 
>
> I think the last few months - since the toolset has been "public" - have shown that there is widespread interest in (and usage of) the tool. It's already become part of the "standard" things that we use when talking to potential partners. However, that there are lots of things that can still be improved in it. 
>
> As anyone who has ever written a large grant proposal knows, there is a LOT of negotiation, behind the scenes that goes in to getting the document supported by all the relevant stakeholders, and this is no exception. [Heck - I chaired the first formal meeting about this project during Wikimania Haifa!!] 
>
> So, it is with great pleasure that I can say that the GLAMwiki Toolset grant application is almost ready to be submitted officially. 
>
> This is where you come in... 
> Many of you have already seen this grant in various states of construction or have been part of the consultation process about what gets prioritised and what doesn't. Now I would really appreciate if you could have another look at the [hopefully] finished application. This is the chance to identify any errors, missing elements, excellent examples I've forgotten, logical flaws, spelling mistakes... 
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Europeana/GLAMwiki_Toolset
>
> If you like it, excellent. Please put your name on the "endorse" list at the bottom. 
> If you've got a comment/critique/suggestion, excellent. Tell me (on the talkpage, email, morse-code, carrier-pigeon etc...) 
> Once any major points arising have been addressed, we'll then "flip the switch" and formally submit the grant application. 
>
> -Liam / Wittylama
> Europeana GLAMwiki liaison
>
> p.s. In case you're wondering, we do have permission from the WMF grants team to submit this application at this time, even thought it is during the 'inspire grants' campaign, because it was already so far down the track of negotiation with various stakeholders.
>
> wittylama.com
> Peace, love & metadata
>
> _______________________________________________
> Glamtools mailing list
> Glamtools@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools
>

First of all a nitpick:

" It is the only “integrated upload tool” for Wikimedia commons (aside from the WMF-developed Upload Wizard)"

Technically you also have the original special:upload, and also that mobile thing thats less popular.

---

One thing i would like to see in future gwt development is bringing it further in line with mediawiki coding conventions. There are several parts that do things differently than the normal mediawiki way, and also some parts that duplicate mediawiki code, but is subtly different (e.g. some of the sanitation code stands out in that regard). Ancedotally i believe this inconsistency with MW core code conventions is significantly reducing the amount of patches that interested unaffiliated developers would otherwise contribute. I also think that more closely following mw core conventions would make it easier for a wmf staff (or volunteer) who isnt previously familar with the code to debug critical bugs in emergency situations (e.g. things like the hhvm job runner bug).

---

On the subject of code review, i believe a major contributing factor to difficulties last time, was development outside of gerrit, and waiting until the end to do code review. I strongly urge that all development be done on wmf's version control (because people watch what happens on wmf version control, and even if nobody is providing code review, they may still point out things that could be significant problems later) . I know first hand that getting code review, especially for non-wmf projects can be extremely difficult. If at all possible, i strongly suggest code review be done as incremently as possible.

Good luck with the grant. I really hope it goes through, gwt is an important project.

--bawolff