On 02/09/2010 17:21, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
Now that this year's program is done and there seemed to be consensus
on the items below when discussed, can we get the proposals below
reflected on the mentee ranking page [1] and other places as
appropriate?
Yes - thanks for picking it up.
I don't have a cwiki account, but that can be fixed if needed :-)
You are a committer right? As long as you are then please go ahead and
create a CWiki account and I'll give you the necessary rights.
The reason we need you to be a committer is that since we auto-publish
the wiki to the website we need to ensure we have a CLA on file for you.
Ross
-Rahul
[1] http://community.apache.org/mentee-ranking-process.html
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Ross Gardler<[email protected]> wrote:
I'd like to make a few comments about issues that have arisen during the
evaluation process for GSoC. I'm going to give my opinion on each, please
treat this as lazy consensus - do speak up if you wish to disagree or add
more items:
Not enough visibility of the process
====================================
There will always be someone who doesn't read the stuff we send out. Where
this is the case I don't think we should worry ourselves.
Sending to PMCs (including the incubator PMC) is sufficient to reach people.
We don't want to send out to committers@ as the project as a whole needs to
be behind taking on a GSoC student.
Reaching PPMCs is more problematic, I think we should continue to rely on
incubator mentors taking the message to their projects if they feel it is
appropriate.
PROPOSAL
--------
Make it explicit that incubator mentors should pass the message on to PPMCs
if appropriate.
Marking experience mentors up
=============================
I really don't like the idea up to 2 points for having been a successful
mentor before, firstly it is error prone (e.g. both Bertrand and Luciano
have been mentors *and* admins, yet the admin this year was unaware of
that). Secondly, just because someone has mentored a student in the past
doesn't mean they will be better than another mentor. Finally, mentoring a
failing student is, in many ways, more educational than mentoring a
successful one.
We already have "Does the mentor show an understanding of how to mentor a
student? (0-4 points)" - I'm more interested in whether the mentor knows
what is expected. However, applying this score is difficult.
PROPOSAL
--------
Remove "Has the mentor had a successful student in the past (0-2 points)"
from the admin rankings
Add some docs to the ranking process about what admins are looking for with
respect to "oes the mentor show an understanding of how to mentor a student?
(0-4 points)" (Noirins mail with the subject Admin coordination to
alexei.fedotov on code-awards wouild be a good starting point)
Original Ideas are good
=======================
Past experience has shown that if a student proposes their own idea and it
is accepted the student is going to be strong.
PROPOSAL
--------
Add the following to the mentor ranking:
Is the project definition and idea originally the mentee's, the
mentor's or a collaborative effort? (0-2 points, 2 if mentee's idea, 1
if collaborative, 0 if mentor's)
