|
|
Boost : |
From: Christopher Kormanyos (e_float_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-03-29 08:13:20
> The point I'm trying to make here is that in these extraordinary
> circumstances:
> - should Boost neglect the "early bird" and treat all applicants equally?
> - should Boost compensate for the lack of work samples with the history of
> the student (like academic records, academic projects, research papers)?
Thanks for your observations, Madhur.
I think it makes sense to look at all proposals that satisfy theformal requirements of timing and form.
That being said, the proposal quality seems to be relativelyself-regulating. This is evident in the sense that the early birdshave already been in contact with us and asked detailedquestions. They have had an opportunity to incorporate theknowledge gained through this question-asking phase withinthe works of their proposals and their programming competencies.
There is also an unremovable human factor. I think mostpeople dedicated to open source code have a certain(maybe even a large) portion of compassion about it.It is fun and pleasant to see this kind of passion growin the community. In general, the sudents who participatedactively early seem more into it in this non-written sense.This can be partly revealed in the proposals, but is alsocertain to be present within the mentor's mental recollectionsto some extent.
Keep going in Boost!
Kind regards, Chris
On Saturday, March 28, 2020, 9:15:19 PM GMT+1, Mateusz Loskot via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 15:34, madhur4127 via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> This is a huge loss to brilliant and enthusiastic students as they will not be able to gain
> experience.
Past years experience and statistics may form a basis to challenge
your enthusiasm.
> This could be an opportunity for Boost to mentor these students who don't
> have prior experience with open source or with a rich C++ background. If a
> student is ready to devote himself/herself then I guess there's enough time
> to learn (till Jun 1) about C++/Project to get things rolling.
No, there is not enough time.
Let me put it straight: readiness to devote is not enough to guarantee
successful completion of GSoC project as not enough are highest
grades on completion of a mathematics or algorithms course.
The current phase is the Student Application Period which
lasts from March 16, 2020 until March 31, 2020.
It is March 28 and students appear out of the blue "looking for contact
with mentor" with a long list of achievements, with 8/10 score in C++
and with zero idea about what they want to develop. They often don't
even know which Boost library they want to apply with.
That clears all the rockstar grades from their CS courses, doesn't it.
On the other hand, there is a handful of students who arrive early,
in January/February, find bugs they want to fix, features they want to
develop, who give it a try hacking something for a Boost library
(I'm speaking of GIL here), who know how to run g++ from command line,
who seek help asking specific questions, who eventually submit pull
requests and who are persistent enough to endure the nitpicking
process the review of their PR.
And they do it before the Student Application Period even starts!
I wish Boost GSoC introduced this policy next year [1]
  "Some organizations make it a must for you to fix a bug in their
  code base before submitting a proposal but some do not.
  Your chances are always high if you can fix a bug in the code."
[1] https://medium.com/@akshikawijesundara/google-summer-of-code-dos-and-do-not-s-896f05e29ac0
> > FYI, you are late.
>
> Mateusz posted in other thread about the student being late (as of today)
> but the GSoC application deadline is due March 31, which I would
> wholeheartedly agree in case of normal circumstances.
> [...]
> The point I'm trying to make here is that in these extraordinary
> circumstances:
FYI, the GSoC does not recognise any extraordinary circumstances
https://opensource.googleblog.com/
https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/
> If a student performs well in the competency test then it indicates that the
> student would do the job
No, solving the competency test gives no guarantees.
The competency test is equivalent of "show me, tell me" questions
at the start of driving licence test in UK [2], before you start driving!
Answering those questions brilliantly does not guarantee a learner
will not crash the car in the first junction after leaving the car park.
> and I think the selection criteria should be
> tweaked so as to consider that students who lost internships and otherwise
> who could be a great value to the library (even for a short time - GSoC)
> don't get neglected.
IMO, Boost cannot afford to be a backup plan for any students.
If students had not planned to apply for GSoC with a project for Boost in 2019
or very early in 2020, they will not be ready to develop and complete a project.
No tweaking is necessary and it any changes would be unfair, unless
Google/GSoC makes any official changes, then we will have to comply.
FYI, the selection process is clear and publicly available:
https://google.github.io/gsocguides/mentor/selecting-a-student
Best regards,
-- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk