@Aklapper, sorry for being late with the text for the CW related tasks that we agreed on Tuesday:

The Wikimedia Hackathon 2016 (Jerusalem March 31 - April 3) focuses on #Community-Wishlist-Survey projects and we have some budget for sponsoring volunteer developers. THE DEADLINE TO REQUEST TRAVEL SPONSORSHIP IS TODAY, JANUARY 21. We can make exceptions for developers focusing on Community Wishlist projects until the end of Sunday 24, but not beyond. If you or someone you know is interested, please REGISTER NOW.

(Slightly tweaked comment added to 106 tasks (excluded those with "Investigation" prefix) in the #Community-Wishlist-Survey project.)

@Lydia_Pintscher, the description mentions T117592: Add page view stats to page information pages but it is closed as a duplicate of T43327: Add page views graph(s) to MediaWiki's info action for Wikimedia wikis. Is that the task that should be featured instead?

Yes. Thanks for spotting. Changing it.

A summary of where we are at:

It feels that we have come a long way. :)

• We defined the idea.
• We brought Community Tech, TCB & Wikidata teams to this game
• We brought WMF Product and Technology teams to this idea.
• We promoted the Hackathon among CW-related circles.

This is an established idea now. We "only" need to assure that Hackathon participants do take Community Wishlist tasks.

• One factor that we control is who gets travel sponsorship approval. Developers with a credible plan to work on CW tasks should get preference.
• One factor where we have some influence but no control is who gets travel approval at the WMF.

These two processes are happening as we speak, with most developers from these groups being confirmed between this and next week.

Still, I expect a significant amount of work to do during February and March, helping developers finding projects, identifying the projects that move forward, and supporting them so they start their discussions and coordination online, allowing for more effective collaboration during the days in Jerusalem.

While I have been a probably-ok assigned of this task until now, I think the new phase requires someone with more time available / allocated to follow and push the process more closely. /me is asking privately to a couple of people...

More about the work that could be done between now and the Hackathon.

This type of goal is new and brings all of us out of our comfort zone. However, maybe a couple of conversations could dissipate the fog and make us realize that the work left before the Hackathon is not that much?

I think the work basically consists about checking the current list of registered participants and

• check for explicit matches and documented them in the related tasks (i.e. Mary says she will work on T123, then check that Mary has that task assigned (if not, ask) and move the task to a Confirmed column in the Hackathon workboard)
• check for participants with vague or no explicit plan and help them choose a project (this might require a email / Conpherence communications, because many people might not like the fact of being proposed projects in public, with the (perceived or real) social pressure that they might feel.
• help the projects confirmed to warm up and do preparations before the Summit

Let's say that we expect about 160 participants. Contacting all of them one by one would be a lot of work. However, we have some defined groups:

• Volunteers with travel sponsorship. In principle volunteers are selected because they have an interesting plan, so not much work would be expected here at least covering the basics.
• Wikimedia volunteers covering their own expenses. We can expect the majority of them knowing what to do and having some plan in mind, related with the CW or not.
• WMF/WMDE professional developers. One-to-many communication should help here, communicating our expectations (which we are doing already) and then offering help to individuals welcoming recommendations.
• Local newcomer developers, which we could expect divided in two subgroups:
  • Local groups with a clear field of expertise (i.e. Android developers), one-to-many communication might work here as well, discussing with the group their best fit for projects.
  • Individual local developers. From all, these are probably the ones requiring more individual attention. Local wikimedians might help here as well, since they will share language and background.

So yes, it is work, but can be reasonably organized in the remaining weeks.

I made a pass through all the sponsorship requests, and it is clear that our campaign is working so far. Many candidates are mentioning CW tasks. Some mention decidedly just one. Some mention two or three where they could work.

In a few days we should have a first wave of candidates accepted, and then it would be good to have some instructions for them, i.e. indicating how to update the description of the tasks they are going to work on, and also perhaps how to update https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Hackathon_2016#Main_Development_Focus

While this is happening, WMF developers and other participants without sponsorship should be registering as well, hopefully some of them identifying other CW tasks (I haven't checked yet). Probably some tasks will get a critical mass of interests and should be highlighted (even as "Thank you, we seem to be fine"). While other good tasks might be still orphan, which we should also highlight to get developers' attention.

@Jdforrester-WMF posted on T120475: Make it easier to cite different pages from a book as one reference: "I think this would be a very very bad idea for a GSoC project." (You can see his rationale on that ticket.)

Should we take that off the list of suggested Hackathon/GSoC projects?

In T119703#2061469, @DannyH wrote:

@Jdforrester-WMF posted on T120475: Make it easier to cite different pages from a book as one reference: "I think this would be a very very bad idea for a GSoC project." (You can see his rationale on that ticket.)

Should we take that off the list of suggested Hackathon/GSoC projects?

@Jdforrester-WMF originally removed it from the Possible-Tech-Projects too, which seems sensible. So, apparently - the task is no more a suggested GSoC project.

#47 T120738: List of content contributors is being pushed as a GSoC project, and there seems to be candidates interested. Therefore, I removed it from the description.