Grants talk:Project

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Email Address bounced back[edit]

Hello, I tried to send an email to the address provided (projectgrants [at] wikimedia.org), but I received the following message:

We're writing to let you know that the group you tried to contact (projectgrants) may not exist, or you may not have permission to post messages to the group. A few more details on why you weren't able to post:

  • You might have spelled or formatted the group name incorrectly.
  • The owner of the group may have removed this group.
  • You may need to join the group before receiving permission to post.
  • This group may not be open to posting.

Hi Barrioflores. Thanks for letting us know about this issue. We're looking into it. Until it's resolved, please email grants@wikimedia.org. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Barrioflores. It should be fixed now. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference to Travel & Participation Support program[edit]

"Travel to present at non-Wikimedia events is funded through the Travel & Participation Support program". This type of grant is inactive, please replace by " Conference & Event Grants program". MADe (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi MADe. Please note that TPS is still active. It is listed as an option for funding on Grants:Start. The Conference Support program is for funding large conferences/events. Thanks. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Round 2[edit]

How it works Round 2? I applied for Round 1, can I apply for Round 2? And how can I apply? --Luca Polpettini (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you may but I advise you to rework your proposals to incorporate the feedback that you have received. Ruslik (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Grants too late?[edit]

Is it too late to propose a project for a grant? Michael Ten (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

For Round 1 is too late. For Round 2 it is not. Ruslik (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Grant $ 100 to buy books[edit]

How to obtain a grant to buy books on the results of the census of Russia to make data ruwiki and wikidata? I wrote to user Ocaasi, but he did not answer. With respect Игорь Темиров (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Игорь Темиров: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/Learn seems the best venue. --Dereckson (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dereckson. Thank you. I'll try.

Look please my application. Apparently I have something not so designed. My application has all the time status of the draft. Игорь Темиров (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Игорь Темиров. I have updated the status to proposed. We review Rapid Grants on Mondays so will provide feedback on your request early next week. Please watch the discussion page. Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Alex Wang, thank you very much. Игорь Темиров (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsure how to prove capability[edit]

Hi there!

My proposal, Arc.heolo.gy, was denied for a second time. I had taken feedback from Round 1 and incorporated it into my proposal, but still did not meet expectations.

How does the review board like to see "proof" of capability in the development context? Links to participants' githubs? Resume? Listing current job? I expanded on the backgrounds of all participants, but still received comments like this:

  • "I have some concerns about the sustainability of this project."
  • "The project can be executed with 8 months but there is little information about the grantee. I am not sure they have the ability to execute the proposal."
  • "Not sure that it's realistic: don't know who the grantee is as there is no previous wiki experience"
  • "I am still not sure that the author of the proposal has the ability to execute it."

While I understand I have very little participation in previous wiki projects, the team I have collected has 5+ years each of professional development each, including participation in dozens of open source projects, and I would like to come up with a concise and powerful way to express that while we are not direct participants in the development of Wikipedia, we are huge proponents of it and have the abilities to execute on our plans.
What sort of community participation does the review board like to see?
In addition, I am unsure how to improve my participation in the feedback to rally community support. For both entries, I have posted in the appropriate mailing lists, and they got 0 feedback.
Any recommendations would be hugely appreciated, as I plan to participate yet again in applying for a Project Grant!

Thank you for your time.

--Ianseyer (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

You are a new user to the Wikimedia projects, so I recommend you to participate in them for some time in volunteer capacity. After you learn more about them and their needs you may try again. Ruslik (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


Do PGs also replace renewal IEGs?[edit]

Hi,

I am a current IEGrantee and would like to apply for a renewal of my IEG project if possible. I am aware that Project Grants are replacing IEGs now, and that IEGs are no longer accepting applications. However, does that apply to renewals as well? Should I then apply for an IEG renewal via the old process, or should I apply for a Project Grant instead?

Thanks! Misaochan (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

At least one renewal was sent to through the regular IEG process. Ruslik (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Ruslik0:, thanks for pointing us in the right direction. The renewal proposal is complete and currently receiving endorsements here. What should our next step be? Many thanks! Misaochan (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Quarterly[edit]

Schedules seem to change around quite a bit. But mostly... the page claims this is quartely. Except that this call will start mid february whilst last call was september. This does not look like quartely to me.

This makes it difficult to anticipate. For example, if the grants were really quartely... we would wait the second quarter to post a grant request for Wiki Loves Africa. But if the next call in 2017 ends up being in September... it will be too late for Wiki Loves Africa. So the question is... will there be a call in Feb, in May, In September and in December. Or only in February and September ? Thanks Anthere (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anthere, thanks for asking about this. I realize this departure is frustrating as an applicant in terms of planning. Open calls for Project Grants will be held twice a year instead of quarterly. Before I explain why, I want to let you know that if you have a project in mind that will be effectively interrupted by this new schedule, please contact Marti Johnson. We can work with you to make sure your project can be still be run appropriately, and that disruption from this new schedule is minimal.
When launching Project Grants, it is fair to say that our team (Community Resources) wanted to offer these grants on a quarterly basis. We knew community members wanted flexibility in being able to apply for these grants throughout the year. The reality is that trying to run Project Grants this often was too ambitious; our staffing resources are limited, an it has made it difficult for us to provide a sufficient level of support to grantees and their projects throughout the year in terms of advising and helping them work through challenges. Each open call also takes a lot of work to prepare, such as through scheduling, messaging, and meeting with grant proposers. By offering open calls twice a year, we'll be able to offer better support to both applicants and funded projects. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok. I do understand the challenge of running it 4 times a year. It makes it more challenging for us (we *really* have to anticipate lol). So I suggest that the Grants:Project page be updated to reflect the reality of things rather than the wish ;) Thanks for the clarification. Anthere (talk)

Complain and grief about not eligibility decision[edit]

Hello, I'm still waiting reply for this post : Grants_talk:Project/Lionel_Scheepmans/Wiki_4_Coop/1#Not_eligible_for_the_current_round_.282017.2F1.29_of_Project_Grants. Could people who read this message help me ? I would like to know whether there is a system of appeal in grant submission system ? Thank in advence and best regards, Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 14:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, after this message, a response was provided by WMF. Effeietsanders (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Open points on grant proposal[edit]

At Grants_talk:Project/mySociety/EveryPolitician#Aggregated_feedback_from_the_committee_for_EveryPolitician, the comments include:

  • "Please define clearly the impact and the deliveries. In my opinion the cost is to high to have only an automated import in Wikidata."
  • "I want to recommend it cautiously for funding but the progress should be closely monitored and the funding continued only if there is a reasonable prospect that they will achieve their goals."

Is there any follow-up on these points? Has the grant actually been paid out? As some of the contributions appear to amount paid editing, it's not entirely clear what WMF is paying to be delivered. --Jura1 (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Something had been posted on Grants:Project/mySociety/EveryPolitician/Timeline and there's more on Grants:Project/mySociety/EveryPolitician/Midpoint. --Nemo 16:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

This is stable and may be marked for transdlation? --Kaganer (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@AWang (WMF): ? --Kaganer (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kaganer. MJohnson (WMF) is considering making some changes so let's hold off until she confirms the timing. Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@AWang (WMF): - ok, thanks, I'm waiting for a notification from MJohnson (WMF). --Kaganer (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
By way, there is these same question about Grants talk:Project/Rapid. --Kaganer (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@AWang (WMF) and Mjohnson (WMF): - any notes about timing for these pages? --Kaganer (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

How do I...[edit]

I created my project grant proposal today. How and when does it get to the page where the drafts are listed. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Barbara (WVS). It looks like your Project Grant proposal is showing up in the correct place. Best, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Grant submission failed[edit]

We are submitting a grant and it does not work! Help! --Nattes à chat (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nattes à chat. It looks like your Project Grant proposal is showing up in the correct place. Let me know if you still need help. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Translation of the tab labels in the grant program navbars[edit]

@AWang (WMF), Mjohnson (WMF), Harej (WMF), I JethroBT (WMF), and Haytham abulela: Hi all! As i noticed, in some pages for some grants programs currently is used these navbar templates:

There templates contains parameters for localizing tab names, but they are not used when calling.

In my opinion, thesse templates is should not be marked for translation. Current scheme of grant pages design is very mixed, byt these navbars seen as "design only". That is, all content must be included into Template:GrantmakingNavbar/Content, for future integration of them in Template:GrantmakingNavbar. See my changes for substitute translation for "Title" param as example.

Another question: who is currently the person responsible for the design and technical performance of grant programs' pages?--Kaganer (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: Maybe this topic needs to move into more appropriate place. If so, please someone do it. --Kaganer (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kaganer: This (and my talk page) were both appropriate venues to bring this up. I generally take care of these pages except the APG ones; but I'm on parental leave right now until the first week of November. I sort of...inherited these pages and done my best to work with them. At some point when I return, I would like to discuss with you about how to best setup translations, as this current system is pretty messy (not to mention that translation tags do not always play nicely with other kinds of markup and modules that are useful in grants). Can you e-mail me at cschilling@wikimedia.org about when you might be available in November to chat? I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@I JethroBT (WMF):, OK. --Kaganer (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for working on this. --Nemo 16:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Written here. --Bramfab (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

SignWriting follow up projects[edit]

Hoi, once the SignWriting font is available, there will be school projects where students write stubs and articles to practice their skills. At this time there is only one project in the Incubator there could be more. German, Saudi Arabian and Brazilian are good candidates (because of their existing involvement in SignWriting. As a member of the language committee I have the opinion that Incubator is not the right environment because the technical issues cannot be properly understood.. (think MediaWiki messages in SignWriting).. I endorse this project because I have championed to them to have Wikipedias because that will jump start the number of people who will stop to be illiterate. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting dates for response[edit]

I received notification that the Project grant for the WiR with the University of Pittsburgh has been initially declined and that a response to comments from the committee are to be submitted within seven days of the initial decision. Later in the notice, the committee has said that they have delayed their final decision to December 15. I intend to make a comprehensive response to the questions and concerns of the committee and will do my best to finish by tomorrow (11/23). I believe that community members/administration from the University will also want to respond but are unavailable until Monday.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Committee pages[edit]

I noticed some pages seem rather stale or perhaps abandoned, have they been superseded or replaced?

  1. Grants:Project/Committee/Candidates (says October 2016 as deadline)
  2. Grants:Project/Committee/Working groups (all sections say "No pages meet these criteria")
  3. Template:Project Grants/Announcement (says "open project proposals are in review, decisions will be announced october 7", last modified in 2016, included in the previous page)
  4. Grants:Project/Committee (says "Invitations for Project Grants committee will begin in April 2016", a bit old; also "Each member each serves either a six- or twelve-month term" but either that's false or the list of members is outdated)

--Nemo 16:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Question about the denied of Various types of transclusions of Structured Discussions boards[edit]

Hello,

My proposal, Various types of transclusions of Structured Discussions boards was denied.

The Review Board's feedbacks from Round 1 could be classified in two:

1. The positive ones about the impact of my proposal:

  • «The proposal aligns well with Wikimedia's strategic priorities and will have a significant online impact if implemented.»
  • «It sounds like a useful tool»
  • «Flow should be in the interested of everybody, an encyclopedia from the XXI century needs a modern way to communicate, use of user's talk pages shows a lack of interested in the actual way of communicating. Most of the new users to Wikipedia are familiar with social platforms and devices with easy and familiar ways to communicate.»
  • «The success can be easily measured»
  • «The project will definitely impact a large audience. Grantee may look for a bigger target within WM sites/communities that already use flow.»

2. The ones questioning the sustainability of the Structured Discussions extension:

  • «Although serious concerns exist that it may not be sustainable in the long run as the development of Flow has stopped.»
  • «I see significant risk related to doing development for a dead extension. This can result in waste of money.»
  • «I do not recommend funding for this proposal unless my main concern related to the present dead state of Flow is addressed.»

In my understanding, the interest of the project wasn't questioned by the Review Board Members so I provided the following comments to prove that Structured Discussions is not dead:

However, my proposal was refused anyway and I didn't received any additional explanations except an invite to apply again in the future: « To reapply with this project in the future, please make updates based on the feedback provided in this round before »

I was hoping that my comments about the sustainability of Structured Discussions were meaningful but since the comments from Round 1 suggested that this was the only reason of the refusal, I would appreciate to receive a detailed explanation for this refusal.

Thank you for your time. --ClemFlip 10:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

ClemFlip, thank you for following up. I'm going to reach out to the committee members who reviewed your proposal and ask for more information about the decision. It might take me a few days to get back to you, but I (or a committee member) will definitely follow up by Friday at the latest. --Marti (WMF) (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
You proposal was still written with the old Flow in mind. You only latter changed the name to 'Structured discussions'. So, it was not clear whether the development initially aimed at the old and dead Flow will be relevant for new 'Structured discussions'? The project did not look clear enough in its goals and usefulness was unclear. Therefore a majority of the Committee members did not recommend it for funding. Ruslik (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Ruslik, thank you for your answer. Indeed, 'Flow' has be renamed as 'Structured discussions' during my Grant Application process. On October 23, I edited my application to reflect that change. However, this rename never changed the scope of the initial functional evolutions proposed in the grant. Meaning that the source code of 'Flow' that we initially planned to improve was absolutely the same than the one in 'Structured discussions'. I am hearing the feedback "goals and usefulness was unclear" for the first time today. I'd have been able to provide more informations if I had heard that in Round 1's feedbacks. Best, --ClemFlip 10:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
They were unclear because you intended to tinker with the old source code which may become obsolete in near future. Ruslik (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
But the source code has never changed! It was just a renaming... I can't believe our grant was denied just because the project was renamed. --ClemFlip 07:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I have never said this. You should read my comments again. Ruslik (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Projects funded in 2017[edit]

Hello, could we have in the list of projects those funded in FY 2017-2018 : [1]

Thanks

Anthere (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

For this Category:Project_Grant_funded_in_FY_2017-2018 needs to be created and filled in. Ruslik (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Ruslik (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Deadline?[edit]

Probably overlooking it, but: What timezone are the deadlines in? :) Effeietsanders (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Effeietsanders. It is not specified :) Basically, it needs to be submitted by 9am Pacific Time on February 1st, when the Program Officer starts to review all of the proposals. Cheers, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Alex! Effeietsanders (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Í

Individuals and eligibility[edit]

In my opinion, project grants should not be focused on specific individuals: it's a warning flag for me when a project relies mostly on a single person running the show, or directs most money to a single individual. One reason is continuity: to build something sustainable, you need projects where other persons can step in. Similarly, the projects are assessed and approved collegially, with an open discussion and a committee decision.

Eligibility criteria include some requirements for individuals (search for "applicants"), which help build stronger proposals. However, individual standing with regard to some of those requirements could in theory vary after the approval of a grant. In my opinion, such changes must not affect the continuation of a grant.

  • First, on the decision-making side: if read literally and applied mechanically, some requirements would give an individual the power to override a collegial decision (e.g. I could just block any grantee I don't like on test.wikipedia.org): therefore, the only proper phase so assess eligibility is the period which leads to the committee decision.
  • Second, on the implementation side: an individual is just an individual. If a single grantee truly cannot complete the expected activities (think severe health reason), the project should be able to replace them with somebody else, or we should conclude that the project assessment failed to identify an excessive reliance on a single individual.

--Nemo 22:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nemo, thank you for this feedback. We do take the considerations you have described into account when we make grants to individuals. We try to weigh the risks associated with funding an individual against the opportunity cost if we don't fund them. In many cases, I believe it is very worthwhile to take advantage of the opportunity presented when a passionate, talented individual seeks funding to implement a project idea, even in light of the risks. In fact, there have been rare instances in which health concerns or other issues have presented an individual from completing a project. In those cases, the individual either returns the funds, or works with me to find a way to complete a modified version of the project. In the years of making individual grants, I think the benefits to the Wikimedia movement have far outweighed the costs.
--Marti (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure, it's not like I was proposing to discontinue individual grants. The points I made about assessment may have been obvious, as you noted. The points about post-approval changes I don't know. I just felt it was worth recording them here. Thanks, Nemo 20:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge to Grants_talk:Start[edit]

There are many grant discussion pages. None of them get much conversation alone. The collective effect is that the current system splits similar conversations which ought to be together. Sometime soon, I will merge all talk pages for grants into Grants_talk:Start. Even with many pages merged together I do not anticipate that this one page will get much traffic in the near future.

Sometime soon I will merge this page! If you have comments, please post at Grants_talk:Start#Proposal_to_merge_talk_pages_for_grants. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing proposal after deadline?[edit]

Hi,

Are applicants allowed to modify their proposal after the proposal deadline as long as they have already submitted a reasonably detailed draft before the deadline, or are no modifications allowed? Thanks!

Best regards, Misaochan (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Misaochan: Sorry we didn't get a timely response to you on this, Misaochan. Edits other than minor ones should not be made after the deadline so the Project Grants Committee is able to review the same proposal during the review period. If major changes are needed for some specific reason, please contact projectgrants@wikimedia.org explaining the rationale behind this request. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi I JethroBT (WMF), I just received this message on my proposal talk page and was a bit confused by it: "Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through January 2, 2019." I was under the impression that we should not be making changes to the proposal other than minor edits after the Nov 30 deadline? The message seems to suggest otherwise. Thanks again! Misaochan (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Misaochan: My apologies-- in my response above, I was referring to the deadline just before the committee review period, but I wasn't clear about that. During the more open community review period, you are able to make more substantive changes to your proposal. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, okay! Thanks for the clarification I JethroBT (WMF). Misaochan (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Email address bounced back (again)[edit]

Hey, the mail address you provide (grants [at] wikimedia.org) on your page does not seem to work. Is there another way to contact you? --Frimelle (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Frimelle: Thanks for letting us know. What page was this on? The landing page for Project Grants lists projectgrants@wikimedia.org as the contact e-mail for the program. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
On Grants:Project/Committee below the table --Frimelle (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

les sans pages[edit]

Hi we are trying to update our grant but are not able to do so. When we edit the empty pages the coding is that of the main meta page. Can you help? Nattes à chat (talk)

Hey Nattes à chat, I've been struggling to figure out why this is happening and have been unable to determine a cause. I've filed a ticket in phabricator to help address it, and I'll continue to look into this issue this and next week. In the meantime, what pages are trying to create? I can get them set up for you manually. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Endorse button doesn't work on mobile view[edit]

Hi

I just found this issue still exists (you click the endorse button but nothing happens, but it looks like you were successful) but isn't documented, is it possible to add a note under the endorse button saying 'doesn't work on mobile' or something?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Project list from Wikimedians in Residence[edit]

I wanted to share an attempt at group community review. The context is that the Wikimedia community typically does not organize in groups to review grants. This is a growing problem because the idea behind this process that the Wikimedia community is supposed to oversee the allocation of grants, but the community lacks the infrastructure and documentation to on-board reviews and direct them to what they should review.

I am coordinator for a the Wikimedia User Group called Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network. At our December meeting we shared this list of Wikimedia grant requests in this cycle of proposals. I am unsure, but I think it previous cycles there were 1-2 Wikimedian in Residence themed requests. This time I found 11 proposals which either fund or depend on a Wikimedian in Residence.

Note that I am Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Virginia, and 2 of these requests (machine learning research US$5000 and library public domain toolkit for US$21,000) are from me for my institution. I am also an adviser who would take no money in the ContentMine machine learning project seeking US$60,000.

Here is the list, and here are the minutes to the meeting where we discussed this - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network/minutes 2018 12.

I am posting all this in hopes of setting a precedent and starting a trend for more Wikimedia community group engagement in the grant review process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Hey Lane, thanks for taking the time to organizing these proposals, and for bringing them to the attention of the user group. It sounds like there's a lot of potential for good feedback and support for each other in developing good proposals. I would like to point out though that the community review period of the current round has passed, and the Project Grants Committee is also coming to the end of their own review and scoring period on the 28th this month. Because the committee members are volunteers, I cannot guarantee they will have sufficient time to incorporate additional community feedback left during this last week, but I will still inform them in case they are able to do so. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@I JethroBT (WMF): Please do not ask anyone to change anything they are doing.
Maybe in the next round we can organize more community review. In retrospect I am just reporting back for this time that I tried and this Wikimedia user group tried to organize some review. It is actually difficult to coordinate this, and we cannot expect that any of the community grant reviewers can further commit to respond to these kinds of efforts. Everyone here is already overcommitted and I cannot ask more of anyone. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, and I will pass this on as well. Thanks again for your and the user group's effort, Lane. :) I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)