Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-09-06 Thread Ross Gardler
Thanks Rahul Sent from my mobile device. On 5 Sep 2010, at 04:10, Rahul Akolkar wrote: > On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >> Added to confluence group >> > > > Changes discussed in this thread (other than PPMCs bit) reflected in > v3 of mentee ranking process page. > >

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-09-04 Thread Rahul Akolkar
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > Added to confluence group > Changes discussed in this thread (other than PPMCs bit) reflected in v3 of mentee ranking process page. -Rahul > On 03/09/2010 15:03, Rahul Akolkar wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Ross Gardler  wro

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-09-03 Thread Ross Gardler
Added to confluence group On 03/09/2010 15:03, Rahul Akolkar wrote: On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: 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

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-09-03 Thread Rahul Akolkar
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > 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 pla

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-09-02 Thread Ross Gardler
On 02/09/2010 17:53, Rahul Akolkar wrote: On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Kathey Marsden wrote: On 9/2/2010 9:21 AM, Rahul Akolkar wrote: Original Ideas are good === Past experience has shown that if a student proposes their own idea and it is accepted the student is go

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-09-02 Thread Ross Gardler
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

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-09-02 Thread Rahul Akolkar
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Kathey Marsden wrote: > On 9/2/2010 9:21 AM, Rahul Akolkar wrote: > > 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 >

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-09-02 Thread Kathey Marsden
On 9/2/2010 9:21 AM, Rahul Akolkar wrote: 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 defin

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-09-02 Thread Rahul Akolkar
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? I don't have a cwiki account, but that can be fixed if needed :-) -Rahul [1] http://co

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-27 Thread Grant Ingersoll
Instead of redirecting, I ask the author to ask, so as not to presume to take something they deem private into the public. Chris Hostetter has a handy URL for this: http://people.apache.org/~hossman/#private_q -Grant On Apr 27, 2010, at 2:58 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > When mentoring, I also tr

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-27 Thread Ted Dunning
When mentoring, I also try to provide some gentle help on this by answering any privately sent code questions in public by redirecting to the mailing list. I also send a gentle nudge pointing out that my answer is on the mailing list and that they would get a faster answer on average if they asked

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-27 Thread Ross Gardler
On 27/04/2010 14:05, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: ...More or less, here's what I tell them: 1. I won't answer any development questions privately... 2. The stuff I will answer privately has to do with you... I like this - I did work like t

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-27 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > ...More or less, here's what I tell them: > 1. I won't answer any development questions privately... > 2. The stuff I will answer privately has to do with you... I like this - I did work like that when mentoring students, without spelling

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-27 Thread Grant Ingersoll
Two cents on a slightly different, but related subject. I interviewed 3 different people this year and as part of that laid out my basic "mentoring" philosophy and each seemed a bit surprised by it at first (but they quickly get why), but to me it is a reflection of the Apache Way. More or les

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-24 Thread Ted Dunning
This is exactly the observation I have from the Mahout students. I would rather not have a project re-invent something that we already have, but I am thrilled to have a student who is self-directed and horrified at the thought of having a student who needs to be micro-managed. Even if the self-di

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-24 Thread Rahul Akolkar
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > I've been holding off on wading into this, but I think that some sort of an > idea has jelled. > > I wonder about Google's statement of the mission. If Google's statement of > the mission is: "Get smart students involved in open source," t

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-23 Thread Benson Margulies
I've been holding off on wading into this, but I think that some sort of an idea has jelled. I wonder about Google's statement of the mission. If Google's statement of the mission is: "Get smart students involved in open source," then we have one situation. If, on the other hand, it is more like "

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-23 Thread Kathey Marsden
On 4/23/2010 4:45 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote: On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Kathey Marsden wrote: On 4/23/2010 4:14 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote: The ability to formulate a GSoC proposal and attract mentor(s) for it must be rewarded. If original just means not going for one of t

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-23 Thread Rahul Akolkar
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Kathey Marsden wrote: > On 4/23/2010 4:14 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote: >> >> The ability to formulate a GSoC proposal and attract mentor(s) for it >> must be rewarded. > > If original just means not going for one of the ideas  proposed by a mentor > for GSoC and explor

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-23 Thread Kathey Marsden
On 4/23/2010 4:14 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote: The ability to formulate a GSoC proposal and attract mentor(s) for it must be rewarded. If original just means not going for one of the ideas proposed by a mentor for GSoC and exploring what's needed, including the issues in Jira and attracting a

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-23 Thread Rahul Akolkar
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Kathey Marsden wrote: > On 4/22/2010 9:26 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: >> >> On Apr 22, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On the other hand, this has been the single criterion that has defined >>> successful students in Mahout (which is definitely l

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-23 Thread Rahul Akolkar
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Kathey Marsden wrote: > On 4/22/2010 7:24 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> PRO

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-23 Thread Rahul Akolkar
+1 to all below. -Rahul On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Ross Gardler 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 disagr

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-23 Thread Kathey Marsden
On 4/22/2010 9:26 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: On Apr 22, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: On the other hand, this has been the single criterion that has defined successful students in Mahout (which is definitely less standards driven). In Derby and similar projects, I think that this c

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-22 Thread Ted Dunning
I should add that our community is very active (occasionally even aggressive) in providing feedback for ideas whether or not they came in as part of GSoC. As we see it, the Summer of Code is just a one reason to contribute among many others (a hobby, a full time job, religious commitment to a lear

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-22 Thread Grant Ingersoll
On Apr 22, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > On the other hand, this has been the single criterion that has defined > successful students in Mahout (which is definitely less standards driven). > > In Derby and similar projects, I think that this can be interpreted > differently, but it sti

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-22 Thread Ted Dunning
On the other hand, this has been the single criterion that has defined successful students in Mahout (which is definitely less standards driven). In Derby and similar projects, I think that this can be interpreted differently, but it still is a useful ranking indicator. Within the set of Derby ap

Re: Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-22 Thread Kathey Marsden
On 4/22/2010 7:24 AM, Ross Gardler 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: Thank's Ross, A few

Reviewing the evaluation process

2010-04-22 Thread Ross Gardler
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