like the credits list?

@Devirk: Thanks! Please edit the task summary and task projects by following https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreach_programs/Life_of_a_successful_project#Submitting_your_proposal ("Associate your proposal to the Phabricator project(s) for the outreach program...") and remove #Community-Wishlist-Survey and Possible-Tech-Projects here.

Since this proposal is valid for both GSoC and Outreachy, we are considering it for GSoC only, as per our rules at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Google_Summer_of_Code/Admins#Proposal_submission_phase

Congratulations @Devirk for getting selected for this project in GSoC 2016! Wish you a good luck with it. You can start discussing ideas and get to speed with the project as the Community Bonding period has started.

Welcome to Google-Summer-of-Code (2016) and to the Community Bonding period! Happy to have you here, and this should be crucial time to create important decisions regarding how your project should take shape during this two month internship period. You can find information about Community bonding period, from our Life of successful doc here. To make sure everything go as per planned, please follow the instructions in T133647 and create the 'Community Bonding Evaluation for $project' task as a subtask of your proposal task. Please note that all further tasks you create for evaluation and GSoC organization purpose should be subtasks of your proposal, and not the parent task - lets reduce the notification count. In case you are stuck, feel free to comment below T133647 or open up a conpherence task with the mentors and org admins. You can find example tasks in the task description of T133647

Hi - I don't mean to be offensive, but it looks to me like some parts of this project were handled badly, and I'd like to make sure that something like this doesn't happen again in the future.

Here are the issues I see:

• The name ("List of Contributors") and description on this Phabricator task are unhelpful. There's no way to know that this project involved modifying the MediaWiki extension called "Contributors" - I had to dig through to find that information. Once it was decided that this project would specifically involve modifying the Contributors extension, the name and description should have been changed to reflect that. (And the list of mentors should have been changed at some point as well - that also seems to be incorrect.)

• Interestingly enough, the Contributors extension is one that I'm listed as the main maintainer of. Regardless of my actual involvement on this extension (minimal, I admit), I feel like I should have been consulted on these changes beforehand; or at the very least, notified about them.

• If you look now at the page for the Contributors extension (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Contributors), there's no indication of any of these changes - and there certainly hasn't been a new version released. Documentation is obviously very important, for the sake of both developers and users; and Google makes documentation a requirement for GSoC projects. Personally, I don't think I would have passed the student, given this shortfall. (Though I would have also made sure that the student did it.)

• As for the coding itself: the changes look reasonable, as far as I can tell; if the extension runs faster now, that's a big improvement. Though there's apparently a pre-existing major bug with the Contributors extension's handling of pages with apostrophes in their names, for MediaWiki 1.27 and higher; which for some reason wasn't fixed in this project. (Or was it? No way to tell.) If it wasn't, that means that the value of the rest of these changes becomes more limited.

• Actually, one small issue with the code changes: it looks like the student, Devi, had his name misspelled here as "Devirk Rishnan": https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/diffusion/ECNN/browse/master/extension.json

Overall, these problems to me look like the fault of the mentors, for (seemingly) treating this project as something like a coding challenge and not as something that affects current MediaWiki users. Perhaps the fault of the administrators as well, for not requesting more clarity in the project description. If this were a new extension being created, that would be one thing; but this is an existing extension, with existing users and developers, and proper communication is critical. @Addshore - you clearly took the development aspect of this project seriously: the extension does seem to have been improved, and it looks like you even made some of your own improvements to the code during the project. But the other aspects were neglected.

Again, I don't mean to be unduly negative, just to try to make sure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. And of course, it's never too late to update the Contributors version number and document all the recent changes.

Thank you for all the efforts, see you as a mentor for Google Code in 2016 at g.co/gci.

Outcome of this 2016 round projects at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Google_Summer_of_Code_past_projects#2016

feel free to close this one down, after all discussions