[Foundation-l] meta-discussion for new project proposals

[Robert Scott Horning]

Elisabeth Bauer wrote:

> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>
>> 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!"  
>
>
> [snipped good suggestions]
>
> Sorry to say this, but in my opinion we shouldn't accept any new 
> projects at all for the next two years but instead work on improving 
> the existing ones. There's enough work to do and even the time we 
> discuss new projects would be better invested in discussing and 
> solving our current problems.
>
> greetings,
> elian

I would have to, for the most part, agree.  The point I was trying to 
make is that the new project proposal page is getting filled, and either 
it gets shut down entirely with a note (no more new proposals are going 
to be accepted, period), or that those new proposals be given a chance 
to move forward.  It is at least possible for a new idea to come up that 
might grab the attention of the board.

So should there be a moritorium on new projects?  Should that kill the 
whole new project proposal page entirely?  Are the people proposing 
these new project simply wasting their time?

 From what you are suggesting, elian, is that yes, they are wasting 
their time in futility because none of those projects are ever going to 
be accepted.  And projects that have been on that page for more than a 
few months are being culled, so most of those are really brand-new 
project proposals.  From my brief time of watching that page on Meta, 
the number of proposals has substantially increased, somewhat 
proportional to the overall growth of the Wikimedia projects in general.

I am suggesting that perhaps there are some good ideas out there, but 
the people who have a germ of an idea they want to come forward with 
should have to put some effort into getting that idea made into a full 
project.  Mind you, this is an idea killing proposal, not a project 
generator engine.  At each stage of the process I outlined, there would 
be a way to get rid of weak ideas for new projects, or things that 
simply don't fit in with the larger community.  Each stage is a way to 
politely say "no" to somebody and try to discourage them from going 
forward with a new project, but give some little bit of encouragement if 
the idea does seem to be remarkable.  Also to try and keep what is often 
new members of the wikimedia community involved and hopefully join with 
existing projects, redirecting their energy and at least letting them 
know that they are welcome to share their ideas, no matter how different 
they may be from the rest of the community.

At the moment, there are only two levels to creating a project:  1) The 
project proposal page and 2) When the server is turned on and people are 
adding content.

This creates problems and is sending a message that nobody, particularly 
the board, is really going to take anything on that project proposal 
page seriously.  It also creates a disconnect between the board and the 
community at large that IMHO shouldn't be there.  It should also be bold 
and blunt that new project ideas are not likly going to happen, while 
from reading everything on the new project proposal page seems to 
suggest the exact opposite.  At least a slightly discouraging "look at 
wikicities" note is in the talk page, but there could be more.

And perhaps even this mailing list isn't exactly the appropriate place 
to announce a new project idea, at least in the initial stages.  You are 
correct that often it is a waste of time and bandwidth to have to deal 
with new project proposals, where most of them will be shot down anyway. 
 Again, this is usually by people new to Wikipedia, or relatively so and 
have begun to branch out a little bit, discovering Meta, the new project 
page, and this mailing list.  I would argue that these are exactly the 
kind of people we need to encourage, and try to get them involved with 
the other existing projects as much as possible.  These also tend to be 
somewhat creative, and people who the word "no" doesn't discourage.  A 
formal process will actually cut down on the number of postings to this 
mailing list, and will be only for projects that pass the first few 
"roadblocks".

There must be some point between absolutely nothing new will be created 
and every crazy proposal will be accepted with server space.  If it is 
going to take a couple of years for a proposal to meander from initial 
concept to final green light, perhaps that would be better.  I do 
believe that new project ideas that are sent through a formal process 
are going to be healthier projects in the long term, and have a larger 
support community to maintain and add content.  Wikispecies is one of 
those that could have greatly benefited from a process like this, where 
the basic ideas on how it would have been put together could have been 
refined before it was turned loose.  Ditto with the 9/11 memorial site. 
 Perhaps even with Wikibooks, although I personally like that project.

-- 
Robert Scott Horning