On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've been holding off on wading into this, but I think that some sort of an > idea has jelled. > > I wonder about Google's statement of the mission. If Google's statement of > the mission is: "Get smart students involved in open source," then we have > one situation. If, on the other hand, it is more like "Get smart students to > do original work (in the academic sense of the term) in an open source > context," then we have another. > <snip/>
Its upto the participating orgs really to decide which students they want to accept. We want the best students with the highest chances of successfully completing their GSoC projects (and even beyond, remain interested in OSS development). The motivation for original ideas isn't purely in the academic sense of it, but also in the observation that on average, those who come up with their own proposals feel more connected with the project at hand and are more likely to retain interest and drive the work to a successful completion. -Rahul > In the former, then those TLPs that are are stable and structured and have, > as it were, a limited set of available itches, should not be penalized. If > it's the later, than those TLPs are at an unavoidable disadvantage. > > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Kathey Marsden <kmarsdende...@sbcglobal.net >> wrote: > >> On 4/23/2010 4:14 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote: >> >>> >>> <snap/> >>> >>> The ability to formulate a GSoC proposal and attract mentor(s) for it >>> must be rewarded. >>> >> >> If original just means not going for one of the ideas proposed by a mentor >> for GSoC and exploring what's needed, including the issues in Jira and >> attracting a mentor, than this would be fine as a global factor I think. >> Perhaps I misunderstood what was meant by original idea. >> >> >> >
