SJ, it sounds like a good plan....but OLPC/1CC had problems retaining mentors last year, so make sure not to over-commit. The remaining OLPC staff may not have time to mentor. Sharon
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm copying our own gsoc list, and glad to clarify how this should work. > > I mentioned to Leslie yesterday that I expected SugarLabs and OLPC > might have separate GSOC projects this year. Someone representing SL > should write and formally get on their list of supported > organizations. [note: this requires tax/ID information for SL] > > OLPC is interested in participating in GSOC this year... some of the > projects I imagine would be activities or software for creation that > would work particularly with the XO's hardware, or would help needs in > OLPC deployments. > > It would be alright for both SugarLabs and OLPC to have people working > on code that could be integrated into Sugar (note the different > activity-development and python coding that was done both as an OLPC > SoC project and via other orgs who wanted their projects to be useful > to OLPC as an audience). It is also possible to submit an application > to more than one organization. > > I recommend noting in our organization descriptions (and definition of > what we are looking for) that people who want to develop tools and > features for Sugar should apply to SL, and people who want to develop > things specifically for OLPC deployments, or other software puzzles > specific to XOs, should apply to OLPC. > > I would encourage most activity developers and activity mentors to > tackle SoC projects under sugarlabs... > > SJ > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Ed McNierney <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, but in 2007 "they" were "us", no? > > > > Thanks, this is helpful information (I didn't know the status of > > OLPC's previous GSoC work). I don't see why there is any reason to > > presume that OLPC would NOT be interested in 2009 GSoC, but I don't > > know of any active ideas/proposals kicking around here. I would > > strongly encourage Sugar Labs ideas, however - to Ben's point, there > > should be no confusion. The only things I could imagine (and it's > > just imagining) coming from OLPC would be ancillary ideas (school > > server add-ons?) that would be quite distinct from XO/Sugar software. > > Go for it! > > > > - Ed > > > > > > On Jan 8, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Wade Brainerd wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> We should take into account that organizations are assigned slots > >>> based on their well behaviour in past editions. > >> > >> To be clear, OLPC was put on GSoC 'probation' last year due to their > >> poor performance reporting on students' work in 2007. They only > >> received 4 slots despite hundreds of applications. > >> > >> Wade > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Sugar-devel mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sugar-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > Gsoc mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/gsoc > -- Sharon Lally Director, Human Resources One Laptop Per Child 617.452.5680 [email protected] www.laptop.org Give a Laptop. Get a Laptop. Change the world! Visit http://www.laptop.org/en/ for more information.
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
