Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Sat, Sep 08, 2018 at 10:57:46AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:31 PM, Jeff King wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 11:51:49AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > > > >> Yeah, I think the https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/ is not actually > >> necessary. > > > > I think it still may be helpful for explaining in further detail things > > like #leftoverbits (though I see you put some of that in your project > > description). > > You mean in https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/ or somewhere else? > > It is already described in https://git.github.io/SoC-2018-Microprojects/. Yeah, I meant it may still be useful to have an Outreachy page for our community explaining community-specific procedures. I agree it's mostly redundant with what's on the GSoC page, but it might be easier on applicants to have a page tailored directly towards Outreachy. But I haven't gone over the material as recently as you, so I'd leave that decision to you. -Peff
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Jeff King wrote: > > By the way, I've got funding from GitHub lined up, so we are good on > that front. Great, thanks!
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:31 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 11:51:49AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > >> Yeah, I think the https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/ is not actually >> necessary. > > I think it still may be helpful for explaining in further detail things > like #leftoverbits (though I see you put some of that in your project > description). You mean in https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/ or somewhere else? It is already described in https://git.github.io/SoC-2018-Microprojects/. >> I did that for the "Improve `git bisect`" project. As the >> "coordinator", you will need to approve that project. > > Thanks. I approved it, though a few of the descriptions are a little > funny. For instance, the text says "we use an issue tracker", which then > links to public-inbox. I assume this is because you filled in a field > for "issue tracker" and then the system generated the text. Yeah, it was generated from fields that I filled in. > I don't know if there's a way go into more detail there. I don't think so, though we could perhaps improve our web pages.
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 11:58:16AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Jeff King wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 09:20:23AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > > > >> >> Thanks. I think sooner is better for this (for you or anybody else who's > >> >> interested in mentoring). The application period opens on September > >> >> 10th, but I think the (still growing) list of projects is already being > >> >> looked at by potential candidates. > >> > >> Do you know where is this list? On > >> https://www.outreachy.org/apply/project-selection/ they say > >> "Information about projects are unavailable until applications open". > > > > This was the list I was looking at (scroll down below the timeline): > > > > https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/ > > Ok, so it's the list of "communities" not "projects" in Outreachy terms. Yeah, sorry, when I said "projects" originally I meant what they call "communities". But it seems that yes, the communities information is being made public now, but the list of mentors/projects is not yet. By the way, I've got funding from GitHub lined up, so we are good on that front. -Peff
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 11:51:49AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > > Thanks. I signed us up as a community (making me the "coordinator" in > > their terminology). I think the procedure is a little different this > > year, and we actually propose projects to mentor through their system. > > Yeah, I think the https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/ is not actually > necessary. I think it still may be helpful for explaining in further detail things like #leftoverbits (though I see you put some of that in your project description). > > So anybody interested in mentoring should go here: > > > > https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/git/ > > > > (and you'll need to create a login if you don't have one from last > > year). You should be able to click through "Submit a Project Proposal", > > after which the fields are pretty self-explanatory. > > I did that for the "Improve `git bisect`" project. As the > "coordinator", you will need to approve that project. Thanks. I approved it, though a few of the descriptions are a little funny. For instance, the text says "we use an issue tracker", which then links to public-inbox. I assume this is because you filled in a field for "issue tracker" and then the system generated the text. I don't know if there's a way go into more detail there. > I think the person who submits a project becomes some kind of primary > mentor for the project. So Dscho, if you want to be such a mentor for > one or both of the other projects on the Outreachy-17 page, please > submit the project(s) otherwise please tell me and I will submit them. > You are free of course to change things in these projects when you > submit them or to submit other completely different projects. Yes, I think the point is make sure the mentors are invested in the individual projects. I imagine a kind of "oh, one of us will probably mentor it" attitude has led to problems in other projects in the past. -Peff
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 09:20:23AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > >> >> Thanks. I think sooner is better for this (for you or anybody else who's >> >> interested in mentoring). The application period opens on September >> >> 10th, but I think the (still growing) list of projects is already being >> >> looked at by potential candidates. >> >> Do you know where is this list? On >> https://www.outreachy.org/apply/project-selection/ they say >> "Information about projects are unavailable until applications open". > > This was the list I was looking at (scroll down below the timeline): > > https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/ Ok, so it's the list of "communities" not "projects" in Outreachy terms. > But yeah, most of the "current projects" lists just say "not available > yet", so I think we're actually OK until the 10th. Yeah, I think so too. >> > So here is a landing page for the next Outreachy round: >> > >> > https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/ >> > >> > about the microprojects I am not sure which page I should create or >> > improve. >> >> Any idea about this? Also any idea about new microprojects would be nice. > > I think #leftoverbits is your best bet for micro-projects. Last year I > think we had interns actually hunt for them via the list archive. That's > a little unfriendly for total newcomers, I think, but it also does give > a chance to demonstrate some skills. Perhaps it would be help to create > a curated list of such bits. Ok, I will see if I have time to create such a list.
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:21 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 06:36:19AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > >> So here is a landing page for the next Outreachy round: >> >> https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/ >> >> about the microprojects I am not sure which page I should create or improve. > > Thanks. I signed us up as a community (making me the "coordinator" in > their terminology). I think the procedure is a little different this > year, and we actually propose projects to mentor through their system. Yeah, I think the https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/ is not actually necessary. > So anybody interested in mentoring should go here: > > https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/git/ > > (and you'll need to create a login if you don't have one from last > year). You should be able to click through "Submit a Project Proposal", > after which the fields are pretty self-explanatory. I did that for the "Improve `git bisect`" project. As the "coordinator", you will need to approve that project. I think the person who submits a project becomes some kind of primary mentor for the project. So Dscho, if you want to be such a mentor for one or both of the other projects on the Outreachy-17 page, please submit the project(s) otherwise please tell me and I will submit them. You are free of course to change things in these projects when you submit them or to submit other completely different projects.
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 06:36:19AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > So here is a landing page for the next Outreachy round: > > https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/ > > about the microprojects I am not sure which page I should create or improve. Thanks. I signed us up as a community (making me the "coordinator" in their terminology). I think the procedure is a little different this year, and we actually propose projects to mentor through their system. So anybody interested in mentoring should go here: https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/git/ (and you'll need to create a login if you don't have one from last year). You should be able to click through "Submit a Project Proposal", after which the fields are pretty self-explanatory. -Peff
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 09:20:23AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > >> Thanks. I think sooner is better for this (for you or anybody else who's > >> interested in mentoring). The application period opens on September > >> 10th, but I think the (still growing) list of projects is already being > >> looked at by potential candidates. > > Do you know where is this list? On > https://www.outreachy.org/apply/project-selection/ they say > "Information about projects are unavailable until applications open". This was the list I was looking at (scroll down below the timeline): https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/ But yeah, most of the "current projects" lists just say "not available yet", so I think we're actually OK until the 10th. > > So here is a landing page for the next Outreachy round: > > > > https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/ > > > > about the microprojects I am not sure which page I should create or improve. > > Any idea about this? Also any idea about new microprojects would be nice. I think #leftoverbits is your best bet for micro-projects. Last year I think we had interns actually hunt for them via the list archive. That's a little unfriendly for total newcomers, I think, but it also does give a chance to demonstrate some skills. Perhaps it would be help to create a curated list of such bits. -Peff
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Thu, Aug 30 2018, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 02:18:19PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> > - it naturally limits the candidate pool to under-represented groups >> > (which is the whole point of the program, but if you don't >> > actually care about that, then it's just a complication) >> >> I'm fine with doing selection discrimination of under-represented groups >> through such a program. Particularly if, as you mention, there's >> earmarked funding for it which otherwise might not be available, so it's >> not zero-sum when it comes to a hypothetical alternative of casting a >> wider net of our own (and as you mention, that would be more work). > > Yeah, just for reference, my "you" there was a hypothetical "one might > or might not care about...", not responding to your particular email. > >> I do think it's unfortunate that the selection criteria for the program >> privileges U.S. citizens and U.S. residents above other people, >> particularly since they're also accepting worldwide candidates (and >> we've had at least one non-American participant that I know about), so >> it's not e.g. for U.S. administrative or tax reasons as one might expect >> if they only accepted Americans. > > I assume you mean this bit from the eligibility rules: > > You must meet one of the following criteria: > - You live any where in the world and you identify as a woman (cis > or trans), trans man, or genderqueer person (including genderfluid > or genderfree). > - You live in the United States or you are a U.S. national or >> permanent resident living abroad, AND you are a person of any > gender who is Black/African American, Hispanic/Latin@, Native > American/American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or > Pacific Islander > > So there are more categories for the US, but I think that is largely > because under-representation is somewhat regional. Being black in the US > is different than being black in Africa. Certainly one could argue that > Africa as a whole is under-represented in the tech world, but I think > you'd probably need to draw different boundaries in different places if > you want to extend opportunities to those who are least likely to > already have them. > > I don't know what those groupings would look like in, say, Europe. If > you're suggesting that the program would be better off having > region-specific rules for more regions, I'd certainly agree with that. I > don't know if it's something the Outreachy folks have considered or > discussed; it might be worth bringing it up. [I don't mean to drag this up again, I had a draft here that I hadn't sent, and thought given that I'm standing for the Git Project Leadership Committee which presumably has something to say about this it was better if I clarified]. I don't mean that just doing the equivalent of s/U.S. national//g on the criteria would improve things, for the reasons you explained that clearly wouldn't be an improvement or in the spirit of the criteria. I was imagining that there was some way to phrase this that would include the current group(s) but be country-neutral. E.g. instead of talking about some specific minorities in specific countries say that if you're in a group below such-and-such a percentage. Although reading this again and consulting Wikipedia they seem to be using all U.S. census groups below 20% with the exception of one (two if you count "Other"), so I don't know how that would translate to other countries, or if that's just an unintentional omission. Perhaps some mix of group + mean income within that group? I don't know, and I'm not familiar enough with the U.S. to speculate as to how they came up with that. Or, just a third criteria of: Projects can opt-in to consider non-U.S. nationals or residents who they believe fulfill the spirit of criteria #2 as it would apply to another country. Then we could (if Outreachy approves) opt-in to that, since considering that on a case-by-case basis is surely less gnarly than trying to come up with some general rule. So again, I don't think this particular thing is a big deal, or something worth spending time worrying about at this point. Just something to keep an eye out for and potentially gently poke Outreachy about. I just think we might stand to get better/more candidates and have more fair process, and be seen to spend project funds in a less biased way if the criteria wasn't an OR'd statement whose second half starts off by outright limiting itself to less than 5% of the world population based on a specific nationality, before further narrowing things down.
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 6:36 AM, Christian Couder wrote: > On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Jeff King wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:16:49AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: >> >>> > 2. To get our landing page and list of projects in order (and also >>> > micro-projects for applicants). This can probably build on the >>> > previous round at: >>> > >>> >https://git.github.io/Outreachy-15/ >>> > >>> > and on the project/microprojects lists for GSoC (which will need >>> > some updating and culling). >>> >>> Ok to take a look at that. >> >> Thanks. I think sooner is better for this (for you or anybody else who's >> interested in mentoring). The application period opens on September >> 10th, but I think the (still growing) list of projects is already being >> looked at by potential candidates. Do you know where is this list? On https://www.outreachy.org/apply/project-selection/ they say "Information about projects are unavailable until applications open". > So here is a landing page for the next Outreachy round: > > https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/ > > about the microprojects I am not sure which page I should create or improve. Any idea about this? Also any idea about new microprojects would be nice.
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:16:49AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > >> > 2. To get our landing page and list of projects in order (and also >> > micro-projects for applicants). This can probably build on the >> > previous round at: >> > >> >https://git.github.io/Outreachy-15/ >> > >> > and on the project/microprojects lists for GSoC (which will need >> > some updating and culling). >> >> Ok to take a look at that. > > Thanks. I think sooner is better for this (for you or anybody else who's > interested in mentoring). The application period opens on September > 10th, but I think the (still growing) list of projects is already being > looked at by potential candidates. So here is a landing page for the next Outreachy round: https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/ about the microprojects I am not sure which page I should create or improve.
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 09:37:59AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > > I also think it doesn't need to be the mentor's responsibility to find > > the funding. That can be up to an "org admin", and I don't think it > > should be too big a deal (I had no trouble getting funding from GitHub > > last year, and I don't expect any this year; I just didn't want to start > > that process until I knew we were serious about participating). > > My experience so far with org admins who don't mentor is that they are > likely to loose interest in the program over time and stop doing much > (which is natural, I don't blame anyone). This is what happened with > GSoC org admins (who don't mentor), so most of the admin work now > falls back on mentors (org admins that mentor). > > That's why I fear that in a few years the burden of finding funds for > Outreachy might fall back on the mentors too. Yeah, I agree that might eventually happen. I think if there are admins willing to look for funds, though, we are better off saving our project money for now. -Peff
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:16:49AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: >> I can also look at getting outside funds. >> >> My opinion though is that it is probably better if the Git project can >> use its own fund for this, as it makes it easier for possible mentors >> if they don't need to look at getting outside funds. > > I disagree. An internship costs more than we generally take in over the > course of a year. So we would eventually run out of money doing this. I think we would have time to figure out a way to get more funds before that happens. > I also think it doesn't need to be the mentor's responsibility to find > the funding. That can be up to an "org admin", and I don't think it > should be too big a deal (I had no trouble getting funding from GitHub > last year, and I don't expect any this year; I just didn't want to start > that process until I knew we were serious about participating). My experience so far with org admins who don't mentor is that they are likely to loose interest in the program over time and stop doing much (which is natural, I don't blame anyone). This is what happened with GSoC org admins (who don't mentor), so most of the admin work now falls back on mentors (org admins that mentor). That's why I fear that in a few years the burden of finding funds for Outreachy might fall back on the mentors too. > So if you (or anybody else) wants to mentor, please focus on the project > list and application materials. Ok, I will do that. Thanks for taking care of the funding.
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:16:49AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > > 2. To get our landing page and list of projects in order (and also > > micro-projects for applicants). This can probably build on the > > previous round at: > > > >https://git.github.io/Outreachy-15/ > > > > and on the project/microprojects lists for GSoC (which will need > > some updating and culling). > > Ok to take a look at that. Thanks. I think sooner is better for this (for you or anybody else who's interested in mentoring). The application period opens on September 10th, but I think the (still growing) list of projects is already being looked at by potential candidates. > > 3. To figure out funding (unlike GSoC, the intern stipend comes from > > the projects). I can look into getting outside funds (which is what > > we did last year). Worst case, we do have enough project money to > > cover an intern. Last year[1] opinions were that this was a > > reasonable use of project money, but of course new opinions are > > welcome. > > I can also look at getting outside funds. > > My opinion though is that it is probably better if the Git project can > use its own fund for this, as it makes it easier for possible mentors > if they don't need to look at getting outside funds. I disagree. An internship costs more than we generally take in over the course of a year. So we would eventually run out of money doing this. I also think it doesn't need to be the mentor's responsibility to find the funding. That can be up to an "org admin", and I don't think it should be too big a deal (I had no trouble getting funding from GitHub last year, and I don't expect any this year; I just didn't want to start that process until I knew we were serious about participating). So if you (or anybody else) wants to mentor, please focus on the project list and application materials. -Peff
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 01:30:05PM +0300, Оля Тележная wrote:
> I was Outreachy intern last winter. I guess I need to speak up: I will
> be happy if my feedback helps you.
> At first, I want to repeat all thanks to Outreachy organizers and Git
> mentors. That was unique experience and I am so proud of being a part
> of this project. But, I need to say that my internship wasn't ideal.
> Mentors, please do not feel guilty: I just want to improve the quality
> of future internships and give some advises.
As one of those mentors, let me first say: thank you for this feedback.
It's very valuable to get your honest perspective.
I more or less agree with everything you said. A few specific comments:
> 1. The main problem of Outreachy internship is positioning. I mean, I
> had strong confidence that it's an internship for newbies in
> programming. All my friends had the same confidence, and that's the
> reason why 2 my friends failed in the middle of the Outreachy
> internship. Load was so big for them, noone explained this fact in the
> beginning, noone helped with this situation during the internship. I
> was thinking I could be overqualified and I took someone's place (I
> had 2 other SWE internships before Outreachy). The truth is that my
> skills were barely enough.
Some of this may be due to Outreachy (I'm not very familiar with the
materials they use to get applicants). But we propose the individual
projects, and I don't think there's anything stopping us from something
that might be smaller in scope (i.e., to focus more on "soft" skills
like participating in the project, and less time on system design or
tricky coding).
I think ideally we'd have various project options with a range of
difficulties, and part of the application period could involve steering
candidates to the right project.
> 2. Please tell more about minimal requirements: write it down on a
> landing page in the beginning and maybe repeat them in every task. I
> guess it would be the same this year: good knowledge of C, gdb, Git
> (as a user: intern needs to know how to work with forks, git remote,
> git rebase -i, etc), Shell, base understanding of Linux terminal,
> being ready to work remotely. It's good idea to mention that it's not
> 100% requirement, but anyway at least 60% from the list must be
> familiar.
Yes, I agree that we don't really communicate the expected skills very
well. That's something we should be able to fix pretty immediately for
the next round.
> 3. If you decide to be a mentor - at first, thanks a lot. Please be
> ready to spend A LOT OF time on it. You need to explain not only the
> task to your intern, but also how to split the task into subtasks, how
> to look for solutions, how to work with the terminal, how to debug
> better and many other questions. It's not only about solving
> internship task. It's about learning something new. And I did not
> mention code reviews: there would be many stupid errors and it's a
> talent not to be angry about that.
I'd agree with this. I think one of the biggest mistakes I made for your
internship was not being focused and spending enough time. Johannes
mentioned that he actually does online pair-programming with his GSoC
students, and I think that would have helped a lot in our case.
Ironically, I was actually worried about being _too_ involved (which is
obviously dumb in retrospect). Since there were some interesting design
problems, I didn't want to just dictate "here's what your design should
look like, go code it and get back to me". I wanted to give you the
space to explore the problem, maybe even make some mistakes, and be
there to "unstick" you when you got stuck. But with basically weekly
check-ins, 3 months goes by _really_ fast.
I think we probably needed to be talking things through and working in
real-time at least an hour a day.
> 4. I fully sure that you need to talk with your intern by the voice. I
> mean regular calls, at least once a week. It's good idea to share the
> desktop and show how you are working, what are you using, etc.
> Ask your intern to share the desktop: you need to feel confident that
> they understand how to work with the task. Help them with the
> shortcuts.
Yeah. I think it would have helped a lot to have a real-time session
where we're actually working on the problem collaboratively, and not
just discussing problems you might have run into. That gives the
opportunity to reveal workflow issues: the intern can see how the mentor
does things (and ask "how/why did you do that neat thing?") and the
mentor can see how the intern does things ("I see you're doing it this
way; did you know you can also do it this way, which is easier?").
> 5. In the ideal world, I want to force all mentors to get special
> courses (it will solve problems 2-3-4). Great developer is not equal
> to great mentor. And, if you work with really newbie, it becomes so
> necessary.
I definitely agree with the "not equal" thing. It might even be
inversely
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
Hi Olga, On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Оля Тележная wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I was Outreachy intern last winter. I guess I need to speak up: I will > be happy if my feedback helps you. > At first, I want to repeat all thanks to Outreachy organizers and Git > mentors. That was unique experience and I am so proud of being a part > of this project. But, I need to say that my internship wasn't ideal. > Mentors, please do not feel guilty: I just want to improve the quality > of future internships and give some advises. Thanks a lot for this feedback! I think it can be very useful and I don't feel guilty as I think no one is really to blame in these kinds of situations. We all have to learn how we can improve. I think a part of the problem as just that the work is really very difficult for interns even if it doesn't seem that it should be so difficult which makes the intern/mentor relationship tricky. > I guess some of the problems aren't related to Git, and it's Outreachy > weak points. Please forward this email to Outreachy organizers if you > want. > > 1. The main problem of Outreachy internship is positioning. I mean, I > had strong confidence that it's an internship for newbies in > programming. All my friends had the same confidence, and that's the > reason why 2 my friends failed in the middle of the Outreachy > internship. Load was so big for them, noone explained this fact in the > beginning, noone helped with this situation during the internship. I > was thinking I could be overqualified and I took someone's place (I > had 2 other SWE internships before Outreachy). The truth is that my > skills were barely enough. Yeah, but will it be better if Outreachy scares too many people away from applying? I am not really sure. Also I think success depends not so much on the students/interns technical skills but on their willingness to ask questions and their ability to get the help the need. Maybe Outreachy and Git should state that more clearly. For a long time I thought that it could be enough to just tell students/interns that mentors are here to help, so they should not be afraid of asking even the most basic questions. But over time I have been realizing that mentors should actively try to understand what help the student/intern need. > 2. Please tell more about minimal requirements: write it down on a > landing page in the beginning and maybe repeat them in every task. I > guess it would be the same this year: good knowledge of C, gdb, Git > (as a user: intern needs to know how to work with forks, git remote, > git rebase -i, etc), Shell, base understanding of Linux terminal, > being ready to work remotely. It's good idea to mention that it's not > 100% requirement, but anyway at least 60% from the list must be > familiar. On our project page (https://git.github.io/Outreachy-15/) we tried a bit to do that, for example there are things like: Language: C Difficulty: medium to hard for each project. And there were no "easy" tasks. So yeah instead of "Language: C" we could have something like: Requirements: very good knowledge and practice of C, shell, gdb, Git, Linux terminal, ... and for difficulty we could remove "medium" and just select between "hard", "very hard" and "impossible" :-) But this could scare possible students/interns away and that's not really what we want. We think that if someone can successfully complete a micro project, they should have enough basic technical skills to get started and then we can teach them what they need. Maybe we could state that more clearly? I also think that the Git project doesn't make enough effort to be newcomer friendly. Maybe we could start by adding a document somewhere that could contain basic useful information for newcomers? Perhaps this could be based on the presentation that Peff gave at the beginning of the Bloomberg Hackathon last November? > 3. If you decide to be a mentor - at first, thanks a lot. Please be > ready to spend A LOT OF time on it. You need to explain not only the > task to your intern, but also how to split the task into subtasks, how > to look for solutions, how to work with the terminal, how to debug > better and many other questions. It's not only about solving > internship task. It's about learning something new. And I did not > mention code reviews: there would be many stupid errors and it's a > talent not to be angry about that. I think mentors are ready to do that. Often the problem is that we just don't know how we could help or how we can make the students/interns confident enough to tell us how we could help or what is blocking them. > 4. I fully sure that you need to talk with your intern by the voice. I > mean regular calls, at least once a week. It's good idea to share the > desktop and show how you are working, what are you using, etc. > Ask your intern to share the desktop: you need to feel confident that > they understand how to work with the task. Help them with the > shortcuts.
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
Hi everyone, I was Outreachy intern last winter. I guess I need to speak up: I will be happy if my feedback helps you. At first, I want to repeat all thanks to Outreachy organizers and Git mentors. That was unique experience and I am so proud of being a part of this project. But, I need to say that my internship wasn't ideal. Mentors, please do not feel guilty: I just want to improve the quality of future internships and give some advises. I guess some of the problems aren't related to Git, and it's Outreachy weak points. Please forward this email to Outreachy organizers if you want. 1. The main problem of Outreachy internship is positioning. I mean, I had strong confidence that it's an internship for newbies in programming. All my friends had the same confidence, and that's the reason why 2 my friends failed in the middle of the Outreachy internship. Load was so big for them, noone explained this fact in the beginning, noone helped with this situation during the internship. I was thinking I could be overqualified and I took someone's place (I had 2 other SWE internships before Outreachy). The truth is that my skills were barely enough. 2. Please tell more about minimal requirements: write it down on a landing page in the beginning and maybe repeat them in every task. I guess it would be the same this year: good knowledge of C, gdb, Git (as a user: intern needs to know how to work with forks, git remote, git rebase -i, etc), Shell, base understanding of Linux terminal, being ready to work remotely. It's good idea to mention that it's not 100% requirement, but anyway at least 60% from the list must be familiar. 3. If you decide to be a mentor - at first, thanks a lot. Please be ready to spend A LOT OF time on it. You need to explain not only the task to your intern, but also how to split the task into subtasks, how to look for solutions, how to work with the terminal, how to debug better and many other questions. It's not only about solving internship task. It's about learning something new. And I did not mention code reviews: there would be many stupid errors and it's a talent not to be angry about that. 4. I fully sure that you need to talk with your intern by the voice. I mean regular calls, at least once a week. It's good idea to share the desktop and show how you are working, what are you using, etc. Ask your intern to share the desktop: you need to feel confident that they understand how to work with the task. Help them with the shortcuts. Remote work is so hard at the beginning, I feel alone with all my problems, feel ashamed to ask questions (because they are not "smart enough"), sometimes I didn't know what to ask. I need to mention that I had almost 1 year of remote work experience, and that helped me a lot. But other interns do not have such experience. Actually, I am sure that the only reason why I successfully finished the internship is that my mentors believed in me and did not fire me in the middle. I personally think that I failed first half of the internship, and only in the end I had almost clear understanding what's going on. (My friend was fired in the same situation.) 5. In the ideal world, I want to force all mentors to get special courses (it will solve problems 2-3-4). Great developer is not equal to great mentor. And, if you work with really newbie, it becomes so necessary. I hope that was useful. In the end I want to say that there's no special requirements to involve people from unrepresented groups. I see no racism or sexism in mailing lists, my mentors were polite and friendly, I can't say anything bad here. Please keep this safe environment and explain your colleagues if you see something bad. In my opinion, the problem is that Git is not friendly with newbies in general. We do not have task tracker, regular mentors (without any special programs: just some developers that are ready to help with first patch). The code is not structured properly, this is additional difficulty for newbie. This system with mailing lists and patches... I understand that it's not possible to make all processes perfect in one moment, but at least we need to help all newbies to solve all these problems in the beginning. I guess that there are only 2 scenarios how to become Git developer. First one is internship. Second is to ask your colleague (who is Git developer) to help you. I don't want to speak on behalf of all women, but I guess many girls feel not confident enough to ask for such help. For me the only possibility to start was the internship. Some personal info: I am in the process of changing jobs. I wish I could help you with mentoring (not as a main mentor, maybe as a second or third one - my experience as an intern could be useful, I could help other interns to start), but I can't predict my load. If you are interested in my help, please write me. And, by the way, please delete my task from list of internship tasks, I will finish it by myself just when I have some free time :)
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 01:46:00PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >> I am willing to mentor, and the only reason that kept me from already >> stepping forward and trying to brush up the landing page is this concern: >> traditionally, we (as in: the core Git contributors) have been less than >> successful in attracting and retaining contributors from under-represented >> groups. I don't think any regular reader of this mailing list can deny >> that. >> >> And while I find it very important to reach out (there are just *so* many >> benefits to having a more diverse team), I have to ask *why* we are so >> unsuccessful. As long as we do not even know the answer to that, is it >> even worth pursuing Outreachy? >> >> I mean, if we make serious mistakes here, without even realizing, that >> directly lead to being stuck in our old bubble, then we are prone to >> simply repeat those mistakes over and over and over again. And that would >> just be a waste of our time, *and* a big de-motivator for the Outreachy >> students. >> >> What's your take on this? > > My feeling is that our lack of diversity has less to do with driving out > diverse candidates, and more that they do not join in the first place. I agree with that. > Which isn't to say we _wouldn't_ drive out diversity, but that I'm not > sure we have very good data on what happens in that second stage. Maybe we could ask Olga in CC what we could do better? > If we > can use the program to overcome "step 1", that helps us get that data > (and hopefully react to it in time to be useful, and not just use the > candidate as a guinea pig; I agree there is the possibility of doing > more harm than good to a student who becomes de-motivated). I agree. > That leaves aside the question of whether things we are doing prevent > people from participating in the first place. I'm certainly open to that > idea, but I think it's a separate discussion. Yeah, I think there is a lot we could do to improve in this area and it would help.
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
Hi, On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Jeff King wrote: > The Outreachy application period is set to begin on September 10th for > interns participating in the December-March program. Do we want to > participate? > > Details on the program are here: > > https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/ > > If we want to, then we need: > > 1. Volunteers to mentor. This is similar in scope to being a GSoC > mentor. I volunteer to co-mentor. > 2. To get our landing page and list of projects in order (and also > micro-projects for applicants). This can probably build on the > previous round at: > >https://git.github.io/Outreachy-15/ > > and on the project/microprojects lists for GSoC (which will need > some updating and culling). Ok to take a look at that. > 3. To figure out funding (unlike GSoC, the intern stipend comes from > the projects). I can look into getting outside funds (which is what > we did last year). Worst case, we do have enough project money to > cover an intern. Last year[1] opinions were that this was a > reasonable use of project money, but of course new opinions are > welcome. I can also look at getting outside funds. My opinion though is that it is probably better if the Git project can use its own fund for this, as it makes it easier for possible mentors if they don't need to look at getting outside funds. Thanks for sending this, Christian.
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 02:18:19PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > It doesn't need to be. As far as I know, the main reasons (from the > > perspective of a project) to do it through Outreachy are: > > > > - being part of a larger program generates attention and gets the > >interest of intern candidates (free advertising, if you will) > > I was wondering if we couldn't do it through Outreachy *and* also do our > own advertisements / possibly recruit candidates outside of the > Outreachy pool. In that case we'd still get the attention/outreach > benefits, in addition to our own... True. I'd worry about spreading our mentor resources too thinly (which I think are probably a bigger bottleneck than actual money). But I guess you're proposing to issue a larger call for candidates, and then we pick from the result (so in the end we'd end up with the same number of actual interns, just from a bigger pool). > Yup, but just as a clarifying point here wouldn't the participants also > get all the same benefits of this in the case of Outreachy+OurOwnProgram > if we ran OurOwnProgram concurrently to Outreachy? > > I.e. I was assuming that once candidates are "handed off" to a project > they're communicating within that project (possibly with other > candidates), and Outreachy is no longer very involved (except maybe for > progress reports / final report, but wouldn't we also do that for a > OurOwnProgram?). > > I may have that completely wrong though, which is why I'm asking, which > b.t.w. I'm doing mostly just to get an idea of how what Outreachy's role > is in this exactly, not to strongly advocate for a OurOwnProgram. I think there _is_ some contact and group resources between Outreachy and the interns. But I'm actually not sure of the extent. I know they encouraged interns to blog (and read each other's blogs). I don't know if there's an intern mailing list, irc, etc. I had the impression that there is, but I don't actually know the details. > > - it naturally limits the candidate pool to under-represented groups > > (which is the whole point of the program, but if you don't > > actually care about that, then it's just a complication) > > I'm fine with doing selection discrimination of under-represented groups > through such a program. Particularly if, as you mention, there's > earmarked funding for it which otherwise might not be available, so it's > not zero-sum when it comes to a hypothetical alternative of casting a > wider net of our own (and as you mention, that would be more work). Yeah, just for reference, my "you" there was a hypothetical "one might or might not care about...", not responding to your particular email. > I do think it's unfortunate that the selection criteria for the program > privileges U.S. citizens and U.S. residents above other people, > particularly since they're also accepting worldwide candidates (and > we've had at least one non-American participant that I know about), so > it's not e.g. for U.S. administrative or tax reasons as one might expect > if they only accepted Americans. I assume you mean this bit from the eligibility rules: You must meet one of the following criteria: - You live any where in the world and you identify as a woman (cis or trans), trans man, or genderqueer person (including genderfluid or genderfree). - You live in the United States or you are a U.S. national or permanent resident living abroad, AND you are a person of any gender who is Black/African American, Hispanic/Latin@, Native American/American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander So there are more categories for the US, but I think that is largely because under-representation is somewhat regional. Being black in the US is different than being black in Africa. Certainly one could argue that Africa as a whole is under-represented in the tech world, but I think you'd probably need to draw different boundaries in different places if you want to extend opportunities to those who are least likely to already have them. I don't know what those groupings would look like in, say, Europe. If you're suggesting that the program would be better off having region-specific rules for more regions, I'd certainly agree with that. I don't know if it's something the Outreachy folks have considered or discussed; it might be worth bringing it up. -Peff
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 01:46:00PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Jeff King wrote: > > > - it naturally limits the candidate pool to under-represented groups > > (which is the whole point of the program, but if you don't > > actually care about that, then it's just a complication) > > > > So IMHO it's easily worth the trouble. > > I am willing to mentor, and the only reason that kept me from already > stepping forward and trying to brush up the landing page is this concern: > traditionally, we (as in: the core Git contributors) have been less than > successful in attracting and retaining contributors from under-represented > groups. I don't think any regular reader of this mailing list can deny > that. > > And while I find it very important to reach out (there are just *so* many > benefits to having a more diverse team), I have to ask *why* we are so > unsuccessful. As long as we do not even know the answer to that, is it > even worth pursuing Outreachy? > > I mean, if we make serious mistakes here, without even realizing, that > directly lead to being stuck in our old bubble, then we are prone to > simply repeat those mistakes over and over and over again. And that would > just be a waste of our time, *and* a big de-motivator for the Outreachy > students. > > What's your take on this? My feeling is that our lack of diversity has less to do with driving out diverse candidates, and more that they do not join in the first place. Which isn't to say we _wouldn't_ drive out diversity, but that I'm not sure we have very good data on what happens in that second stage. If we can use the program to overcome "step 1", that helps us get that data (and hopefully react to it in time to be useful, and not just use the candidate as a guinea pig; I agree there is the possibility of doing more harm than good to a student who becomes de-motivated). That leaves aside the question of whether things we are doing prevent people from participating in the first place. I'm certainly open to that idea, but I think it's a separate discussion. -Peff
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Thu, Aug 30 2018, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 03:12:37PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> > 2. To get our landing page and list of projects in order (and also >> > micro-projects for applicants). This can probably build on the >> > previous round at: >> > >> >https://git.github.io/Outreachy-15/ >> > >> > and on the project/microprojects lists for GSoC (which will need >> > some updating and culling). >> [...] >> I just have a "yes" to the first one of those. Which tells you how much >> skin I have in the game (and how much you should(n't) listen to me) :) > > Yes, if nobody steps up to do 2, then it won't happen. :) > > For myself, I don't think I have time to commit to mentoring this round. > And IMHO the people signing up to mentor should be the ones contributing > to the project list (since they will ultimately be on the hook for > working on those projects with the intern). > >> Just a question: It seems to me that #1 and #2 is not tied up to the >> Outreachy process. I agree that finding a qualified intern to work on >> Git would be a good use of project funds. >> >> What's not clear to me is if/how tied up this needs to be to a specific >> external program such as Outreachy. I.e. do we as a project need to go >> through that organization, or can that be just one of the ways in which >> we send out a call for interns? Thanks! > It doesn't need to be. As far as I know, the main reasons (from the > perspective of a project) to do it through Outreachy are: > > - being part of a larger program generates attention and gets the >interest of intern candidates (free advertising, if you will) I was wondering if we couldn't do it through Outreachy *and* also do our own advertisements / possibly recruit candidates outside of the Outreachy pool. In that case we'd still get the attention/outreach benefits, in addition to our own... > - Outreachy handles payment, invoicing for external funds, and any >legal stuff > > - it's possibly easier to external funding if it's earmarked for a >program like Outreachy, since that program provides a framework with >particular goals, conditions, oversight, etc. ... but not both of these at least if we selected any a non-Outreachy candidates. Nice to get a good summary of the pros there. > I think there's some general value in having a group, too. Because > there are many interns all participating at the same time, they can > offer each other support or advice, show off their work to each other > via blog posts, etc. And it may be easier for them to communicate > about their accomplishments and status for future work, since it's > part of an established program that can easily be explained. Yup, but just as a clarifying point here wouldn't the participants also get all the same benefits of this in the case of Outreachy+OurOwnProgram if we ran OurOwnProgram concurrently to Outreachy? I.e. I was assuming that once candidates are "handed off" to a project they're communicating within that project (possibly with other candidates), and Outreachy is no longer very involved (except maybe for progress reports / final report, but wouldn't we also do that for a OurOwnProgram?). I may have that completely wrong though, which is why I'm asking, which b.t.w. I'm doing mostly just to get an idea of how what Outreachy's role is in this exactly, not to strongly advocate for a OurOwnProgram. > As for reasons _not_ to do it, I don't think the requirements are particularly > onerous. Mostly it's: > > - it has to happen at a specific time, which might not be convenient > for mentors or interns (last year I found it hard to get focused > starting in December, with all of the holidays) Yup. > - it naturally limits the candidate pool to under-represented groups > (which is the whole point of the program, but if you don't > actually care about that, then it's just a complication) I'm fine with doing selection discrimination of under-represented groups through such a program. Particularly if, as you mention, there's earmarked funding for it which otherwise might not be available, so it's not zero-sum when it comes to a hypothetical alternative of casting a wider net of our own (and as you mention, that would be more work). I do think it's unfortunate that the selection criteria for the program privileges U.S. citizens and U.S. residents above other people, particularly since they're also accepting worldwide candidates (and we've had at least one non-American participant that I know about), so it's not e.g. for U.S. administrative or tax reasons as one might expect if they only accepted Americans. I don't think that's some big deal, just something that puts the Git project as an international cooperation (and one that solicits funds from donors worldwide) into a slightly odd position, so something we should keep in mind going forward. > So IMHO it's easily worth the trouble. > >> With GSoC
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
Hi Peff, On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Jeff King wrote: > - it naturally limits the candidate pool to under-represented groups > (which is the whole point of the program, but if you don't > actually care about that, then it's just a complication) > > So IMHO it's easily worth the trouble. I am willing to mentor, and the only reason that kept me from already stepping forward and trying to brush up the landing page is this concern: traditionally, we (as in: the core Git contributors) have been less than successful in attracting and retaining contributors from under-represented groups. I don't think any regular reader of this mailing list can deny that. And while I find it very important to reach out (there are just *so* many benefits to having a more diverse team), I have to ask *why* we are so unsuccessful. As long as we do not even know the answer to that, is it even worth pursuing Outreachy? I mean, if we make serious mistakes here, without even realizing, that directly lead to being stuck in our old bubble, then we are prone to simply repeat those mistakes over and over and over again. And that would just be a waste of our time, *and* a big de-motivator for the Outreachy students. What's your take on this? Ciao, Dscho
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 03:12:37PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > 2. To get our landing page and list of projects in order (and also > > micro-projects for applicants). This can probably build on the > > previous round at: > > > >https://git.github.io/Outreachy-15/ > > > > and on the project/microprojects lists for GSoC (which will need > > some updating and culling). > [...] > I just have a "yes" to the first one of those. Which tells you how much > skin I have in the game (and how much you should(n't) listen to me) :) Yes, if nobody steps up to do 2, then it won't happen. :) For myself, I don't think I have time to commit to mentoring this round. And IMHO the people signing up to mentor should be the ones contributing to the project list (since they will ultimately be on the hook for working on those projects with the intern). > Just a question: It seems to me that #1 and #2 is not tied up to the > Outreachy process. I agree that finding a qualified intern to work on > Git would be a good use of project funds. > > What's not clear to me is if/how tied up this needs to be to a specific > external program such as Outreachy. I.e. do we as a project need to go > through that organization, or can that be just one of the ways in which > we send out a call for interns? It doesn't need to be. As far as I know, the main reasons (from the perspective of a project) to do it through Outreachy are: - being part of a larger program generates attention and gets the interest of intern candidates (free advertising, if you will) - Outreachy handles payment, invoicing for external funds, and any legal stuff - it's possibly easier to external funding if it's earmarked for a program like Outreachy, since that program provides a framework with particular goals, conditions, oversight, etc. I think there's some general value in having a group, too. Because there are many interns all participating at the same time, they can offer each other support or advice, show off their work to each other via blog posts, etc. And it may be easier for them to communicate about their accomplishments and status for future work, since it's part of an established program that can easily be explained. As for reasons _not_ to do it, I don't think the requirements are particularly onerous. Mostly it's: - it has to happen at a specific time, which might not be convenient for mentors or interns (last year I found it hard to get focused starting in December, with all of the holidays) - it naturally limits the candidate pool to under-represented groups (which is the whole point of the program, but if you don't actually care about that, then it's just a complication) So IMHO it's easily worth the trouble. > With GSoC we don't have a choice in the matter, since Google's paying > the bills and runs the show, but it sounds like in this case we at least > partially do. I think that the autonomy and level of responsibility for the mentors/project is about the same between GSoC and Outreachy. The main difference is just the funding model (but again, I suspect we would not have too much trouble securing external funding). -Peff
Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
On Tue, Aug 28 2018, Jeff King wrote: > The Outreachy application period is set to begin on September 10th for > interns participating in the December-March program. Do we want to > participate? > > Details on the program are here: > > https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/ > > If we want to, then we need: > > 1. Volunteers to mentor. This is similar in scope to being a GSoC > mentor. > > 2. To get our landing page and list of projects in order (and also > micro-projects for applicants). This can probably build on the > previous round at: > >https://git.github.io/Outreachy-15/ > > and on the project/microprojects lists for GSoC (which will need > some updating and culling). > > 3. To figure out funding (unlike GSoC, the intern stipend comes from > the projects). I can look into getting outside funds (which is what > we did last year). Worst case, we do have enough project money to > cover an intern. Last year[1] opinions were that this was a > reasonable use of project money, but of course new opinions are > welcome. > > If the answer is "yes, we should participate", it will hopefully be > accompanied with "yes, I will mentor", and "yes, and I will start > getting the land#ing page ready." :) I just have a "yes" to the first one of those. Which tells you how much skin I have in the game (and how much you should(n't) listen to me) :) Just a question: It seems to me that #1 and #2 is not tied up to the Outreachy process. I agree that finding a qualified intern to work on Git would be a good use of project funds. What's not clear to me is if/how tied up this needs to be to a specific external program such as Outreachy. I.e. do we as a project need to go through that organization, or can that be just one of the ways in which we send out a call for interns? With GSoC we don't have a choice in the matter, since Google's paying the bills and runs the show, but it sounds like in this case we at least partially do. Or maybe Outreachy is doing some heavy lifting with screening or has partial subsidies which would still make it prohibitive to e.g. send out a general call of our own for candidates on the mailing list & in other venues.
Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?
The Outreachy application period is set to begin on September 10th for interns participating in the December-March program. Do we want to participate? Details on the program are here: https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/ If we want to, then we need: 1. Volunteers to mentor. This is similar in scope to being a GSoC mentor. 2. To get our landing page and list of projects in order (and also micro-projects for applicants). This can probably build on the previous round at: https://git.github.io/Outreachy-15/ and on the project/microprojects lists for GSoC (which will need some updating and culling). 3. To figure out funding (unlike GSoC, the intern stipend comes from the projects). I can look into getting outside funds (which is what we did last year). Worst case, we do have enough project money to cover an intern. Last year[1] opinions were that this was a reasonable use of project money, but of course new opinions are welcome. If the answer is "yes, we should participate", it will hopefully be accompanied with "yes, I will mentor", and "yes, and I will start getting the landing page ready." :) -Peff [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20170901223059.xsbcpqff45mnb...@sigill.intra.peff.net/
