On 28/02/2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Nice claims. Pointers? > > I agree that this is mainly based on personal perception (but that's > not really my fault: no final report about what students did (in > detail) are available).
OK. So you lack info, thus assume people failed. Nice. Steve already answered about this, anyway. > > How is this distinction relevant? Isn't that possible to be > > waiting-for-that-never-coming-DAM-review, student, but also > > working on various opensource projects, as well as maintaining > > packages, alone or within teams, working on various areas of the > > Debian project (e.g. QA, by providing with patches, NMUing > > packages; or mentoring people with their new or updated packages), > > at the very same time? > > > > I believe it's possible. And I believe you'll find a trivial > > example. > > GSOC != "get funding for existing DDs to do $DEBIAN_WORK". If GSOC > is only DuncTank 2.0, I think that we could have a nice > thread^Hflamewar about whether it's good or evil. GSOC is considered > good by many people because one of its stated goals is to bring > fresh blood to free software. I'm not saying that GSOC is about getting funded to do $USUAL_DEBIAN_WORK, I'm just saying that it's possible to work on very different areas, and to keep a separation before “usual work” and “GSOC work”, and that your distinction (early-NM, waiting-forever-NM, and so on) is totally irrelevant. BTW, it might be relevant to check GSOC's FAQ to see what it is about. ,---- | Google Summer of Code has several goals: | | * Get more open source code created and released for the benefit of | all; | * Inspire young developers to begin participating in open source | development; | * Help open source projects identify and bring in new developers and | committers; | * Provide students in Computer Science and related fields the | opportunity to do work related to their academic pursuits during | the summer (think "flip bits, not burgers"); | * Give students more exposure to real-world software development | scenarios (e.g., distributed development, software licensing | questions, mailing-list etiquette). `---- Source: http://code.google.com/soc/2008/faqs.html#0.1_goals Please note that it's not only about “bringing fresh blood to free software”. > Now, I agree that "fresh blood" is difficult to define. Is someone > that has been involved a bit in Debian for 1-2 months "fresh blood"? Again, that's not the (only) point. > Someone who submitted some bug reports, but never got involved? Submitting bug reports is IMHO a way to get involved. At least in my experience, FTWC. > someone who is very involved in GNOME, but not involved in Debian? > So my distinction sucks, but I couldn't come up with something > better that fitted in a line. There's no line to fit. > > Now. How come it wouldn't be possible to apply for a GSOC slot, > > lowering the involvement in one (or more) of the above-mentioned > > areas, and concentrating on a specific project? > > Past years show that this is very hard to do, Pointers? Ahah, no, you already said you haven't got any. > but of course it's possible. But that also means that we are > shooting ourselves in the foot: we are asking someone to lower his > involvement in some areas of Debian, where we might be depending on > him. Many Debian teams might not be able to afford to lose an active > contributor during the summer (just before the lenny release!) so he > can work on his GSOC project. Huh? You know about libre arbitre, right? If people apply to GSOC, their choice. I really don't know why you would forbid them to apply. So that they keep doing the dirty job before a release? -- Cyril Brulebois
pgpSjKxjhcWxG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
