I think it also looks good, but if you disagree, please edit the
application. I will be away for a week starting tomorrow, but jwe can
edit the application that we've submitted to Google up until the
deadline, which is on Friday at 17:00 UTC. If you think our
application needs to be edited by then, please signal him about it.
For reference, the application as seen by Google is here, but I think
it's only visible to me and jwe:
Re: GSoC 2013 Octave application for mentoring org
On 27 March 2013 20:48, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think it also looks good, but if you disagree, please edit the
> application. I will be away for a week starting tomorrow, but jwe can
> edit the application that we've submitted to Google up until the
> deadline, which is on Friday at 17:00 UTC. If you think our
> application needs to be edited by then, please signal him about it.
I have made a few edits to the application which I hope make it more
assertive and concise.
For example, on the plan to deal with disappearing students it was
written that we will try to call them if a phone number was provided.
We can instead say that we will call them and make a requisite to the
students to provide one.
On choosing mentors, it read as if there were a lot of factors with
different weights, including how active they are on the community and
if they have commit access. But shouldn't these be requisites as well?
Does it make any sense to have a mentor that is not active or never
contributed a patch? That would conflict with how we will keep them
around after the summer. If the mentor does not, it wouldn't be a good
example for the student. I have changed this to point that projects
have several mentors, at least 1 core developer, and others with
expertise on the field of the project.
I have also pointed out that Octave is a tool that students are likely
to keep using during school year, or after finishing studies, which
helps in keeping them involved.