Difference between revisions of "Summer of Code/Application/2013"

Summer of Code/Application/2013 (view source)

Revision as of 07:04, 28 March 2013

1,111 bytes removed , 07:04, 28 March 2013

Sync with online application

Strangerke

Bureaucrats, Administrators

1,190

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== <span style="color:red">DRAFT, BRUTAL COPY OF 2012, DO NOT USE WITHOUT FURTHER MODIFICATIONS!</span>==
-; -<span style="color:red"> Questions have been updated. </span>
-; -<span style="color:red"> Text has also been updated - first pass. </span>
 == Introduction & overview ==
@@ Line 69: / Line 65: @@
 We have participated in the GSoC program for six years running, in 2007-2012.
-<span style="color:red"> requires proofreading: <p>
+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 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 considered merging student code earlier in the GSoC process and have modified our processes accordingly for the next years
-</p></span>
 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 79: / Line 73: @@
 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. Our latest release contains code from all 5. We consider a great achievement the fact that 4 of the students still continue to contribute to the project. We had one student severely underachieving that year. Although his mentor helped him to a great extent, even going as far as writing portions of his task's code with him as a method to help him along, he still failed to even come close to completing the task. It is our assessment that the major problem was that he overestimated his free time to work on the project. We will be addressing this kind of issue this year by using several methods, such as requiring a more detailed task schedule, explicitly asking about prior commitments and conducting interviews with the students.
+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.
-In 2007 we had 7 students and 4 mentors in total. Two of our students have been promoted to active, regular developers in the team after having their respective code contributions integrated in the codebase. One other student's code contributions have also been integrated in the mainline. Two more have their code still in development to improve it and make it production-ready, either through optimization or extension and better integration. Two students failed to keep up with the schedule and/or produced inadequate code.
+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.
-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.
+Summary pass/fail:
-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.
+: 3/1
+: 1/1
+: 4/0
+: 4/1
+: 5/1
+: 5/2
 === If your organization has not previously participated in Google Summer of Code, have you applied in the past? If so, for what year(s)? ===