Mailing-List: contact dev-help@community.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@community.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rahul.akolkar@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.212.42 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=Ecfy2bvNLzBSm3ZrBrGAX0N49bqgGgj300AD+Jzs673PurO+ZiyX9g8kub5rdtTSfw
         yCfzLGOLh5UJkPkq3OO17kcM6yp3rR1yEp0iYh53NCyFPhQwkt06Z/NjdaT2b4VnpjF3
         GNzrqzP92UFcBBasj6bmnE9J8wdw60RnyAFWw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4BD07018.8020808@sbcglobal.net>
References: <4BD05C0C.4040000@apache.org> <4BD07018.8020808@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:14:50 -0400
Message-ID: <l2wce1f2ea81004231614i2cda3826t7c03ec807817ceeb@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Reviewing the evaluation process
From: Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar@gmail.com>
To: dev@community.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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
>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>> 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. =A0In a standards based product like Derby th=
ere
> is not that much room for creativity in the initial =A0"idea" and project=
s
> =A0are mostly based on existing Jira entries. =A0Also really everything i=
s
> collaborative in the community and that should be encouraged. =A0 =A0I th=
ink 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. =A0Oppo=
sing
> timezones can make this hard to coordinate and I think skills in written
> communication is what is key to success. =A0 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 kno=
w
> 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


> =A0I think Alexei's 0 point comments for suggested
> adjustments or more information from students were good, but if we all di=
d
> 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 sho=
uld
> 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 =A0monitor their student's application
> during the critical ranking period to spot any mistakes or injustice and
> speak up at the time.
>
> Kathey
>
>
>