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 23:02:30 GMT
+1 to all below.

-Rahul


On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Ross Gardler <rgardler@apache.org> wrote:
> I'd like to make a few comments about issues that have arisen during the
> evaluation process for GSoC. I'm going to give my opinion on each, please
> treat this as lazy consensus - do speak up if you wish to disagree or add
> more items:
>
> Not enough visibility of the process
> ====================================
>
> There will always be someone who doesn't read the stuff we send out. Where
> this is the case I don't think we should worry ourselves.
>
> Sending to PMCs (including the incubator PMC) is sufficient to reach people.
> We don't want to send out to committers@ as the project as a whole needs to
> be behind taking on a GSoC student.
>
> Reaching PPMCs is more problematic, I think we should continue to rely on
> incubator mentors taking the message to their projects if they feel it is
> appropriate.
>
> PROPOSAL
> --------
> Make it explicit that incubator mentors should pass the message on to PPMCs
> if appropriate.
>
> Marking experience mentors up
> =============================
>
> I really don't like the idea up to 2 points for having been a successful
> mentor before, firstly it is error prone (e.g. both Bertrand and Luciano
> have been mentors *and* admins, yet the admin this year was unaware of
> that). Secondly, just because someone has mentored a student in the past
> doesn't mean they will be better than another mentor. Finally, mentoring a
> failing student is, in many ways, more educational than mentoring a
> successful one.
>
> We already have "Does the mentor show an understanding of how to mentor a
> student? (0-4 points)" - I'm more interested in whether the mentor knows
> what is expected. However, applying this score is difficult.
>
> PROPOSAL
> --------
> Remove "Has the mentor had a successful student in the past (0-2 points)"
> from the admin rankings
>
> Add some docs to the ranking process about what admins are looking for with
> respect to "oes the mentor show an understanding of how to mentor a student?
> (0-4 points)" (Noirins mail with the subject Admin coordination to
> alexei.fedotov on code-awards wouild be a good starting point)
>
> 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)
>

Mime
View raw message