Re: [boost] [gsoc16] Boost rejected as GSoC 2016 org

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc16] Boost rejected as GSoC 2016 org
From: YongHao Hu (christopherwuy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-01 21:47:29

Hi, all. I am a student.
As far as I am concerned, though BOOST was not selected as GSoC 
organization, but you can still mentor students who are interested in 
BOOST and don't care about $5000 and GSoC certificate. Well, I am one of 
these students.
Thank you for reading this email. Sorry for the noise.
Regards.

On 16/3/2 上午7:02, Andreas Schäfer wrote:
> On 19:07 Tue 01 Mar     , Niall Douglas wrote:
>> On 1 Mar 2016 at 12:13, Andreas Schäfer wrote:
>>
>>> IIRC last year Mozilla and the Linux Foundation were rejected. There's
>>> really nothing jaw dropping or outrageous about it.
>> It is deeply disappointing for those students and mentors affected.
>> It is highly disruptive to the pipeline we are running, and is not a
>> case of simply pressing Pause on GSoC for a year.
> Looks like this is a case of mismatched expectations. I don't think
> it's healthy to build a pipeline on GSoC since it is, as we can see
> now, not a budget you can count on.
>
>> Many if not most of our students are postgrads, and next year they
>> will no longer be eligible for GSoC.
> Well? Next year there will be other students. That's the point of
> GSoC, right? To get fresh students interested in open source.
>
>>> For a small org two slots can make a huge difference, for larger orgs
>>> not being accepted will generally not endanger the project itself.
>>> Google is simply trying to put the money where it has the biggest
>>> impact. I think that's a good thing.
>> Please take your trolling elsewhere. Nobody here appreciates it.
> Niall, I assure you I'm certainly not trolling nor trying to aggravate
> anyone. I'm merely trying to offer an explanation for why it might be
> sensible to spread the funds, based on my own experience with GSoC.
>
> To give an example: I'm working with the STE||AR Group. Two years ago
> we were accepted for the first time and were allocated three slots.
> Doesn't seem to be much, but it made a huge difference for us, and me
> personally. In fact, the code that Christopher Bross wrote for me
> during GSoC 2014 became the basis for half a dozen further student
> projects and even my own, current research. I am extremely grateful
> for this opportunity I was presented with. The impact is different if
> a software project is already well established and is attracting lots
> of contributors beyond of GSoC. Nevertheless, I understand everyone
> affected by Boost being excluded this year is disappointed. That's
> perfectly reasonable. I can sympathise with both sides.
>
> BTW: one of my own project ideas for this year is related to Boost[1],
> and I'm sure there are other proposals like this. So in the long run
> Boost might benefit from GSoC'16 nevertheless? I for one sure hope so.
>
> Cheers
> -Andreas
>
> [1] https://github.com/STEllAR-GROUP/hpx/wiki/GSoC-2016-Project-Ideas#extensionevaluation-of-libgeodecompregion-as-an-alternative-adjacency-container-for-boost-graph-library
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost