On 2016-08-29, 7:33 PM, "Niall Douglas" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2016 at 12:29, Jon Kalb wrote: > Boost has participated in the Google Summer of Code program for a > decade. This program allows college students to have a paid summer > internship working on open source projects. Because the students that > work on Boost libraries tend to stay with the same libraries summer > after summer, the continuity of this program is important to Boost and > to the students that work on Boost projects. I would rewrite this to point out it's usually *their* code they return to summer after summer. It takes that long, if not longer, to get code into a Boost library. I’m not certain what is incorrect here. They are Boost projects correct? > This continuity was threatened this year when Google rejected Boost´s > application for GSoC participation. This was not because of the quality > of our application (Boost has traditionally been a model GSoC > participant), but was the result of a policy to make room for some > new open source projects to participate in GSoC. This is incorrect. They have a policy of rejecting orgs from time to time to ensure they don't become dependent on Google money. In particular, they explicitly wish to dissuade orgs from bringing back the same students again and again to work on the same code like we do. Whoa, whoa, whoa! This is new information for me. I was told that the reason that we were rejected was because it was our “turn” and Google had previously rejected other distinguished projects (linux??) and that it had nothing to do with the nature of our application. You’ve just told me something quite the opposite. That we were rejected because our pattern doesn’t match their criterion. I would very much have liked to have known this last spring. Carol, who preceded the new Google coordinator, understood that some types of org unavoidably require multiple summers and we got a free pass. The new coordinator is not aware or not convinced, or possibly doesn't care. Have we tried to reach out to Carol’s replacement? Bradley probably knows the players. > This is Google's > > program and they need to develop policies that are best for?their > program. But this policy would mean no summer internships for Boost and > leave students that have been working on Boost libraries looking for > other alternative for the summer of 2016. > > When IMC Financial Markets learned about this situation, they saw it as > an opportunity to support the Boost community and demonstrate their > commitment to student development and open source. > > IMC worked with Boost to create its own "Boost Summer of Code" program, > deliberately patterned after Google´s program. IMC also stepped up to > underwrite all the costs of this program for the summer of 2016. I'm personally finding the tone a little hostile to Google? Why is that a question? More importantly what is that you find hostile to Google? I don’t feel any hostility to Google on this. In fact I thought that when I said “This is Google's program and they need to develop policies that are best for their program.” That I was pretty much just saying what you said when you said, “and it's their money.” I’m not opposed to starting the announcement like this: Boost has participated in the Google Summer of Code program for a decade and is very grateful for Google's generous support. This program allows college students to have a paid summer internship working on open source projects. Because the students that work on Boost libraries tend to stay with the same libraries summer after summer, the continuity of this program is important to Boost and to the students that work on Boost projects. I think that is an improvement. I agree Google were not helpful this year. They may continue to not be helpful in years to come as we specifically fall foul of their new policy. In the end however, they've given us at least a quarter million dollars in total, and it's their money, if they wish to withdraw it because we no longer suit their goals then I think we need to more clearly express our thanks for their support until now, and that we hope that in time they may come to see that high quality code is hard to deliver in just one summer. It'll be interesting to see if this new helicopter money with high rates of churn approach will prove sustainable. I suspect it'll make it far harder to find mentors because it'll be such a crap shoot, and it's not like grooming new proposals and candidates each year is free of cost. I’m not certain what you mean by this, but I don’t think we need to pursue it now. > We thank IMC for their support and community leadership. On this I think nobody can disagree. It was such a nice surprise too. I’m not certain how to translate your comments into edits to my statement. I want to get a statement out as quickly as possible. Would you be willing to create a draft that you find more appropriate? Thanks. Jon Niall --- Boost C++ Libraries Google Summer of Code 2016 admin https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/SoC2016 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Boost Steering Committee" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
