1,190
edits
Difference between revisions of "Summer of Code/Application/2013"
Summer of Code/Application/2013 (view source)
Revision as of 09:17, 14 March 2013
, 09:17, 14 March 2013→If you answered “yes” to the question above, please summarize your involvement and the successes and challenges of your participation. Please also list your pass/fail rate for each year.
Strangerke (talk | contribs) (→Why is your organization applying to participate in Google Summer of Code 2013? What do you hope to gain by participating?: Praise somaen, update number of years) |
Strangerke (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
=== If you answered “yes” to the question above, please summarize your involvement and the successes and challenges of your participation. Please also list your pass/fail rate for each year. === | === If you answered “yes” to the question above, please summarize your involvement and the successes and challenges of your participation. Please also list your pass/fail rate for each year. === | ||
We have participated in the GSoC program for five years running, in 2007- | We have participated in the GSoC program for five years running, in 2007-2012. | ||
In 2012, 5 team members mentored 4 students. Each mentor was also the co-mentor of another task, so the backup mentoring was still working well. 3 students passed, and one failed at mid-term. One student is still contributing to the project and volunteered to be a mentor for GSoC 2013, which is really great awesome. Based on discussion with other projects and on our experience, we considered merging student code earlier in the GSoC process and have modified our processes accordingly for the next years | |||
In 2011, 4 team members mentored 2 students. One student succeeded in objectifying the CruisE engine, which really needed it. The other student unfortunately gave up fairly quickly after starting work (although the work done was eventually merged into our main repository, after being worked on further by a team member). After stepping back to review our processes, we feel we can still consider them to be mature. Part of the problems which caused the student to quickly give up came from internal tensions, that we have since addressed by redefining the project management structure. | In 2011, 4 team members mentored 2 students. One student succeeded in objectifying the CruisE engine, which really needed it. The other student unfortunately gave up fairly quickly after starting work (although the work done was eventually merged into our main repository, after being worked on further by a team member). After stepping back to review our processes, we feel we can still consider them to be mature. Part of the problems which caused the student to quickly give up came from internal tensions, that we have since addressed by redefining the project management structure. | ||
| Line 74: | Line 76: | ||
All in all, we maintain that we are refining our method of student selection | All in all, we maintain that we are refining our method of student selection the past years and this refinement leads to better results each year. | ||
The discussions, testimonials and proposed actions which the mentor summit has brought up -and which we have participated in these | The discussions, testimonials and proposed actions which the mentor summit has brought up -and which we have participated in these six years- have helped us a great deal, during this refinement process as well. Our new management organization has also proven its efficiency during these last 2 years, and we expect much of it in the future. | ||
=== If your organization has not previously participated in Google Summer of Code, have you applied in the past? If so, for what year(s)? === | === If your organization has not previously participated in Google Summer of Code, have you applied in the past? If so, for what year(s)? === | ||