On Apr 10, 2010, at 5:26 PM, Sean Owen wrote: > +mahout-dev I think at this point > > I could be misremembering (there's that word again Grant) but are we > not supposed to sign on to mentor more than 1 person without having > talked it over on code-awards? Seems like a lot of grumbling about > gaming the system and such from past years, which seems legit.
Yes, you need to talk it over on code-awards. Given your work status, perhaps you could do 2, but that is your call. It is sometimes the case that students try to sign up for multiple projects at a time and get paid for both. The stipend Google pays can be quite a lot of money in many countries, so it encourages gaming the system, unfortunately. > > I was saying to these guys earlier that I tried to mentor 2 proposals > in the first GSoC* and it was a lot more involved that I imagined (in > my case, hard to get work out the students :( ), so, probably a good > idea to stick at 1 anyway. I'd stick to 1, unless you have copious free time. That being said, the only "mentoring" I ever do privately is stuff to do with personal matters (i.e. progress, vacation, sickness, etc. stuff of that matter). All else discussion about the project and how to implement stuff should happen on the list. Students need to know this up front and expect my response to private questions on implementation details to say "please ask on the list" (I'm sure David and Deneche can vouch for this). As they say in ASF land: If it didn't happen on a list, it didn't happen. > > One per person is a good idea, but, indeed that means we'd be > accepting at best about 1/3 of the proposals on the table. It would be > great for one more person to sign on as a mentor if possible. > +1, but probably too late at this point.
