community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Reviewing the evaluation process
Date Fri, 23 Apr 2010 23:14:50 GMT
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Kathey Marsden
<kmarsdenderby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/22/2010 7:24 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
<snip/>
>> 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)
>>
> I think this one is tricky.  In a standards based product like Derby there
> is not that much room for creativity in the initial  "idea" and projects
>  are mostly based on existing Jira entries.  Also really everything is
> collaborative in the community and that should be encouraged.    I think I'd
> rather see this one left out.
>
<snap/>

The ability to formulate a GSoC proposal and attract mentor(s) for it
must be rewarded. While I understand it may be easier to be original
with some projects than others, its possible to be original and
creative anywhere :-) FWIW, in my standards work, I see progress
coming from implementations doing new and interesting things and
pushing boundaries.

Note that, by design, the question carries relatively low weight
(other questions have upto 4 points). Overall, its 2/21.

It is our failure if we create the impression that we are only looking
for GSoC coders who will deliver defined modules of code for us. Lets
look for the next generation of innovators at the ASF. Lets make that
clear.


> Additional items -
> 1) I think 2 points for a live (non-email) interview is too much.  Opposing
> timezones can make this hard to coordinate and I think skills in written
> communication is what is key to success.   If we have to keep it, make it
> clear that IRC is also ok for full points.
>
<snip/>

My experience is that the above (need for those 2 points) is what
pursuaded me to have a VoIP conversation with a mentee who is exactly
12 hours apart. Even with the time difference and a slight language
problem, I found it to be the most useful and expeditious thing I did
in that particular evaluation.

Having said that, I'm fine with IRC if thats the only feasible option.


> 2) I think uneven ranking is still something of an issue, but I don't know
> how to address it without putting a lot more work on the admins to review
> the mentor ranking.
<snap/>

Yup, its uneven and its a hard problem unless someone is willing to
put a lot of effort into it every year.

-Rahul


>  I think Alexei's 0 point comments for suggested
> adjustments or more information from students were good, but if we all did
> that, it would mean a lot of comments for the admins to review and
> negotiation that would take more time than we have.
>
> And just a couple doc issues ...
>
> 3) Since the ranking process is public (and I am glad that it is), we should
> advise students and mentors to look at it carefully and make sure their
> proposal meets the criteria to the best of their ability.
>
> 4) Mentors should be encouraged to  monitor their student's application
> during the critical ranking period to spot any mistakes or injustice and
> speak up at the time.
>
> Kathey
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message