community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Reviewing the evaluation process
Date Thu, 02 Sep 2010 22:54:17 GMT
On 02/09/2010 17:21, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> Now that this year's program is done and there seemed to be consensus
> on the items below when discussed, can we get the proposals below
> reflected on the mentee ranking page [1] and other places as
> appropriate?

Yes - thanks for picking it up.

>
> I don't have a cwiki account, but that can be fixed if needed :-)

You are a committer right? As long as you are then please go ahead and 
create a CWiki account and I'll give you the necessary rights.

The reason we need you to be a committer is that since we auto-publish 
the wiki to the website we need to ensure we have a CLA on file for you.

Ross

>
> -Rahul
>
> [1] http://community.apache.org/mentee-ranking-process.html
>
>
> 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