On Feb 12, 2015 1:11 PM, "Liam Wyatt" <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[tl;dr Seeking feedback. Please read the GWT 2.0 grant application
draft before I
submit it officially:
As you're aware, within Europeana I (and MANY others) have been working
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
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
So, it is with great pleasure that I can say that the GLAMwiki Toolset
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...
If you like it, excellent. Please put your name on the "endorse" list at
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
-Liam / Wittylama
Europeana GLAMwiki liaison
p.s. In case you're wondering, we do have permission from the WMF grants
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.
Peace, love & metadata
Glamtools mailing list
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