|
|
| Line 90: |
Line 90: |
|
| |
|
| ;We also defined for the last two years a co-mentoring system so the students have a primary and a secondary mentor, which comfort us in the idea that, in any case, the students will not be left hanging for any reason at all, no matter what happens. | | ;We also defined for the last two years a co-mentoring system so the students have a primary and a secondary mentor, which comfort us in the idea that, in any case, the students will not be left hanging for any reason at all, no matter what happens. |
|
| |
| === 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 seven years running, in 2007-2013.
| |
|
| |
| In 2013, <span style="color:red">TO BE DONE</span>
| |
|
| |
| 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 awesome. Based on discussion with other projects and on our experience, we are considering merging student code earlier in the GSoC process and have modified our processes accordingly for the next year.
| |
|
| |
| 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 2010 we were granted 4 slots and had 6 mentors, thus we had nice backup mentoring for every student. All four passed the finals this time, and we merged in their code. One student still continues to contribute to the project. We addressed several long standing project needs and it was just excellent.
| |
|
| |
| In 2009 we had 5 students and 6 mentors. 4 of our students passed, and one failed the finals. That year the success was so big that all the students' code was merged within three months into the main development line. We were considered to be mature in our processes by that time with excellent outcome.
| |
|
| |
| In 2008 we had 6 students and 7 mentors. 5 of our students were so successful that their code is included in the mainline of ScummVM, and we consider it a great achievement the fact that 4 of the students continued to contribute to the project.
| |
|
| |
| In 2007 we had 7 students and 4 mentors in total. Two of our students continued to become active, regular developers in the team after having their respective code contributions integrated in the codebase. All but two of the other students succeeded in their projects.
| |
|
| |
| 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 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.
| |
|
| |
| Summary pass/fail:
| |
| *2013: 4/0
| |
| *2012: 3/1
| |
| *2011: 1/1
| |
| *2010: 4/0
| |
| *2009: 4/1
| |
| *2008: 5/1
| |
| *2007: 5/2
| |
|
| |
|
| === What criteria did you use to select the mentors? Please be as specific as possible. === | | === What criteria did you use to select the mentors? Please be as specific as possible. === |