@LGoto Done, thanks for sorting it out!

Thanks @LGoto ! I have re-added the task details. I believe @Nicolas_Raoul has submitted the proposal on the Outreachy website, but I can't seem to sign up to co-mentor. My dashboard just shows the project that I mentored for Outreachy in 2018, and no other options. The "sign up as mentor" page brings me to https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/ which says they are closed?

@debt @LGoto We've been trying to figure out how to hide our task as per the Outreachy rules, and neither @Nicolas_Raoul nor myself seem to have the option to do so. Presumably because we aren't members of this board? Any help would be appreciated.

Could I be added as a mentor for this group please? I just realized that we needed to hide our tasks, but I don't see that option in Edit Task (presumably because I'm not a member?).

@bd808 That sounds great! :) Let us know if you need any help.

In T234632#5604919, @brennen wrote:

During planning discussions, it came up that we'd like to have this session happen prior to T235372, on the theory that there's a natural progression from one to the other.

Thanks @brennen ! I have added you as co-lead.

Hey @bd808 and @srodlund , that would be fantastic if possible! Could you both confirm that you would like to go ahead with this, ASAP? I think the committee will be removing sessions without a confirmed leader soon.

@jeena Awesome, thank you! :) I will add you as a session leader for both, please feel free to fill out the rest of the template as you see fit.

In T234634#5580278, @apaskulin wrote:

I’m assuming session leaders need to be attending the conference?

We're still looking for a session owner for this session, as well as T235371 and T235372, in order for the proposed sessions to go ahead. @kostajh @Florian @hashar @jeena @Tgr @bd808 would you be interested in leading any of these sessions?

Hi all, we're still looking for a session leader in order for this session to go ahead. :) Once we have one, we can proceed to narrow the scope down, perhaps splitting into subtopics based on feedback here.

Hey all, we are still looking for session leaders in order for this session to go ahead. :) Would anyone like to take it up? @Tgr @Addshore @Quiddity ?

Ah, okay. :) Is anyone else interested in leading this? @TK-999 , if you'd like, maybe someone else can lead, and you can co-lead and learn the ropes from them along the way?

Thanks for the feedback! As proposed above, I have edited the title of this session to focus on MediaWiki core, and added two sessions: T235371 and T235372 for discussing adoption/long-term maintenance and complex multi-service development.

Maybe something on the line of "best practices & useful methods for remote teams - volunteers and staff alike?"

In T234634#5566953, @TK-999 wrote:

Storing documentation in a VCS repo, perhaps next to source code even, could be an interesting alternative to consider, as it might allow for an easier review and contribution process. The session could also look at some other open source projects to see how they store and curate documentation.

@TheDJ That makes sense - I think we can definitely add more specific goals once we start the process of building this session. Would you and/or @Tpt like to be the session leader/co-leader?

In T234634#5565267, @brennen wrote:

One suggestion for a focus: Maintenance & cleanup of existing docs. This has come to mind thinking about docs and new developer onboarding - there's a ton of material but it's not always clear how it relates to the current state of things or how to navigate it. Technical debt lives in the documentation as much as anywhere...

@hashar Hmm, good point. If we were to break the scope down into a couple of more focused discussions, what would you suggest?

Hi all, thanks so much for the feedback! Based on the comments, it sounds like it might be a good idea to:

Sorry for missing this. The redesign happened, but the implementation is unstable and work in progress. I've created the follow-up post on GitHub. :)

The slides for the talk can be accessed here if anyone wants: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1G-zqkIW1kHvGTUtEAv--opDYQQbwyqo2Mhd7OQEYH5Y

Hi Rachel, I am more than happy to present at the opening talk. :) We are currently still trying to reach a consensus on which tasks would be good for the hackathon, but we should be able to sort things out by then.

Just wanted to post that @maskaravivek 's solution works for me (for the most part). If no issues, we will be pushing a release with this implementation very shortly. :)

I cherry-picked the change onto our 2.8-release branch - should be fine to just release this in 2.8, no need to wait for 2.9. :) Thanks @Nemo_bis !

I saw your mailing list post. Nicely-written, well done! :)

Hi @Tanvidadu1998 , I trust you received Srishti's email? :) I think you can start writing updates about your progress at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Google_Summer_of_Code/2018#Community_bonding_period . So for instance if you subscribed to wikitech-l as we talked about yesterday, you can add that to your updates. Please feel free to carry on with the other community bonding period steps mentioned on that page, as well as the project-specific tasks that Vivek suggested like reading documentation, and update via that page as you go.

Hi @Aklapper , we extended our Outreachy deadline to Mar 29, and I can confirm that I see this proposal in my Outreachy dashboard.

Hi @maskaravivek , @K0x3rr spoke to me about the same thing over email, and I explained to him that this project is eligible for both GSoC and Outreachy, but that T188877 is reserved solely for GSoC. :)

Thanks for submitting your proposal. It looks great to me in general, and the list of bugfixes is impressive! :)

@Gupta-meghna64 thanks for the update! The previous apps that you have worked on look amazing. Well done. :)

Thanks @ayushin78 . :)

Thanks for the update, @harisanker24 !

Happy to see that you have updated your proposal! The new formatting looks great and much more readable. :)

I agree with @maskaravivek - the outcome of the quiz should not affect reputation/points. :)

Thanks for submitting your proposal! :) It looks good to me in general, but I have a few suggestions:

• In the timeline it is good that you have frontloaded your work and allocated time for mockups, testing and debugging, etc. However, I personally think too little time is allocated for implementation. E.g. For Phase 1 I would recommend moving "Decide the information which will be displayed in the stats info page. Improve it through community discussion." up into the mockup week so that you have at least 2 weeks for implementation.
• We appear to be missing 5 days in June? ;) If you are allocating that time for writing your midpoint report, please do mention that.

Nice to see you have submitted a proposal, and the apps you have worked on before look great. :) A few suggestions:

GitHub project link would be great!

Thanks for putting this proposal up. I am guessing that tasks and deliverables are still being worked on? That's totally fine, but I would recommend putting the deliverables next to the tasks in the table (in a 3rd column), that will make it easier for us to view them.

Glad to see that you are working on your proposal. :) I especially like the detailed task breakdowns - it's great that you have suggested documenting the results of various API strategies, and mockups for each UI phase.

Very thorough and well thought-out proposal, nice. :) I am very happy to see time allocated for testing and fixing bugs, and that the task details reflect the discussion we had in the relevant GitHub issues. A few suggestions:

Should be fixed via https://github.com/commons-app/apps-android-commons/pull/1019 , thanks for bringing this to our notice!

Update to all: After some discussion, we have been informed that this requirement has been waived, for the reasons mentioned here. Thank you for your patience and help, everyone. :)

Hi all,

Apologies for reviving this, but it would be very useful for the Commons Android app if we could query this. Several users have requested to be able to see the total number of uploads they have made to Commons, but we are unable to show it to them.

Hi @Tobias1984 and @Rfarrand ,

This issue is currently tracked at https://github.com/commons-app/apps-android-commons/issues/144 , please refer there instead (sorry, @Aklapper , we had to do some housekeeping in our GitHub issues).

Thanks for the suggestion. We do have plans to add more licenses to the app - the task is currently tracked at https://github.com/commons-app/apps-android-commons/issues/254 . Unfortunately I don't have the time currently to implement it, due to other commitments. However, I have outlined the steps needed for implementation on that GitHub thread, and it would make a good starter task for someone wanting to get involved with our codebase, so if any volunteers are interested in picking it up, that would be great. :) Alternatively, I could include it (along with adding explicit license selection, as the current license selection method is less than ideal) in my IEG renewal proposal at the start of next year.