[GSoC] Mentor voting.
Guus der Kinderen
guus.der.kinderen at gmail.com
Mon Apr 12 14:18:15 CDT 2010
Don't forget to make tentative mentor assignments that are roughly in line
with the mentoring capacity and desired number of slots. This is due today
(I can't find a more defined deadline, but better be safe than sorry).
On 12 April 2010 20:22, Kevin Smith <kevin at kismith.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Kevin Smith <kevin at kismith.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Guus der Kinderen
> > <guus.der.kinderen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hmm, sorry, I've startes adding scores yesterday. Won't scores average
> > Yeah, np - I'm just trying to do a quick pass over (which isn't quick,
> > because I'm busy at work), to move the rubbish to the bottom of the
> > pile (some operations - like marking ineligible - aren't available
> > once a proposal has a comment or vote on it).
> Right, I've been through - there was only one non-spam proposal that I
> think we should dismiss outright (a duplicate of an Apache
> submission). Could people start voting on the proposals please? It's
> fine to ask the students questions about their applications (and I'd
> like at least one question asked of each student, to check they're
> able to communicate and not likely to vanish and be uncontactable
> during the project).
> Please bear in mind that this is an almost 3month project of full-time
> work, so proposals should be meaty enough to keen a competent student
> occupied for hundreds of hours.
> I've been unimpressed with a couple of applications where the students
> haven't bothered to answer questions from the application form, or
> provide JIDs (indeed the student who claimed they couldn't work out
> how to get a JID, while posting from a gmail account is worrying).
> That said - we've got some really strong applications as well, this
> year, so this could be fun :)
> >> On 12 April 2010 12:06, Kevin Smith <kevin at kismith.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> Just a note for people to not start voting yet. I'm still going
> >>> through the list and marking ineligible stuff that's spam (I don't
> >>> think we have any more of these), and marking -4 stuff I think we
> >>> shouldn't consider.
> >>> /K
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the GSoC