Don't forget community mentors! On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Sharon Lally <sha...@laptop.org> wrote:
> > 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 <s...@laptop.org> 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 <e...@laptop.org> 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 <to...@sugarlabs.org> >> >> 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 >> >> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org >> >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Sugar-devel mailing list >> > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org >> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Gsoc mailing list >> g...@lists.laptop.org >> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/gsoc >> > > > > -- > Sharon Lally > Director, Human Resources > One Laptop Per Child > 617.452.5680 > sha...@laptop.org > www.laptop.org > > > Give a Laptop. Get a Laptop. Change the world! Visit > http://www.laptop.org/en/ for more information. > > _______________________________________________ > Gsoc mailing list > g...@lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/gsoc > >
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel