Changes between Version 6 and Version 7 of SoC2015


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Jan 30, 2015, 12:08:26 AM (8 years ago)
Author:
Niall Douglas
Comment:

small fixups

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • SoC2015

    v6 v7  
    1010
    1111==== How we are implementing '''student programming aptitude testing''' in 2015 ====
    12 The second new change is in how projects will be ranked by the community. Up until now, the community ranked student proposals by awarding a score to their written proposal, and we recommended to Google to select all those proposals which matched a single mentor to a single student based on the top of that score ranking. Unfortunately, this process has led to some disappointments for both student and mentor especially where the student was far better at writing proposal texts than writing code, and we also worry that the old system discriminates against non-native English speakers. As of this year, we therefore request a new part to student proposal ideas ''whether proposed by student or mentor'', that being of an exam or test the students interested in that proposal can take to demonstrate their programming capability. In 2015, student proposals with accompanying ability test scores for that candidate '''will be preferentially ranked above proposals without test scores'''. If the precanned proposal from this ideas page or from preceding years written by a mentor lacks a programming test, or the student fails to supply answers to a test, their proposal will not be preferentially ranked no matter its otherwise quality or merit.
     12The second new change is in how projects will be ranked by the community. Up until now, the community ranked student proposals by awarding a score to their written proposal, and we recommended to Google to select all those proposals which matched a single mentor to a single student based on the top of that score ranking. Unfortunately, this process has led to some disappointments for both student and mentor especially where the student was far better at writing proposal texts than writing code, and we also worry that the old system discriminates against non-native English speakers. As of this year, we therefore request a new part to student proposal ideas ''whether proposed by student or mentor'', that being of an exam or test the students interested in that proposal can take to demonstrate their programming capability. In 2015, student proposals with accompanying ability test scores for that candidate '''will be preferentially ranked above proposals without test scores'''. If the suggested proposal from this ideas page or from preceding years written by a mentor lacks a programming test, or the student fails to supply answers to a test, their proposal will not be preferentially ranked no matter its otherwise quality or merit.
    1313
    1414This runs the risk of excluding student proposals not suggested by this ideas page - in fact, Louis Dionne's Hana was not suggested here, it came entirely from Louis. We therefore add a second way of getting preferentially ranked: candidates who have written existing C++ libraries of at least 1,000 lines of code (excluding comments and whitespace) and who propose their own project, AND have prearranged a mentor through [http://www.boost.org/community/groups.html#main the Boost developer's mailing list], will also be preferentially ranked.
    … …  
    3737Students may find examining past GSoC source code and commit histories of use.
    3838
    39 = Suggested precanned GSoC project proposals =
    40 
    41 == INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADDING PRECANNED PROPOSALS ==
     39= Suggested GSoC project proposals =
     40
     41== INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADDING SUGGESTED PROPOSALS ==
    4242
    4343Please follow the following proposal structure. See the concurrent hash tables proposal below for an example.
    … …  
    6868The following projects and programming competency test have been suggested by potential mentors. Selecting one of these, in consultation with the [http://www.boost.org/community/groups.html#main Boost developers mailing list], provides the highest chance that a mentor can be found for your GSoC project proposal and that your proposal will be preferentially ranked (see above). A template for the proposal can be found [wiki:SoCSubmissionTemplate here].
    6969
    70 === 1. Concurrent hash tables (boost::concurrent_unordered_[multi]set|[multi]map) ===
     70=== 1. Concurrent Hash Tables (boost::concurrent_unordered_[multi]set|[multi]map) ===
    7171Potential mentors: Niall Douglas
    7272
    … …  
    106106
    107107
    108 === 1. Boost.odeint ===
     108=== 1. Boost.odeint Implicit Routines ===
    109109Potential mentors: Karsten Ahnert and Mario Mulansky
    110110
    … …  
    140140=== How to propose a mix of the below work items on the Boost mailing list ===
    141141
    142 Please do not simply arrive on the list and ask "I want to do (insert some random project idea here) because I don't want to do one of the predesigned GSoC projects on the list. Give me a mentor." as you will likely be ignored as a probable time waster. If you are to propose your own GSoC project, '''it must be of equivalent quality to the precanned GSoC project proposals written by mentors''' already on the ideas page, and by "equivalent", we really do mean '''equivalent''' i.e. very high, and probably including a programming competency test of your own design. This is why mentors take the time to write project proposals for you, because for mentors who are domain experts in their field it is easier to write a high quality GSoC proposal likely to pass peer review and Google's own proposal review than for students who are not domain experts. If you are still really sure you want to invest the very considerable work to propose your own project, do the following before writing to the Boost mailing list with your own proposal:
     142Please do not simply arrive on the list and ask "I want to do (insert some random project idea here) because I don't want to do one of the predesigned GSoC projects on the list. Give me a mentor." as you will likely be ignored as a probable time waster. If you are to propose your own GSoC project, '''it must be of equivalent quality to the suggested GSoC project proposals written by mentors''' already on the ideas page, and by "equivalent", we really do mean '''equivalent''' i.e. very high, and probably including a programming competency test of your own design. This is why mentors take the time to write project proposals for you, because for mentors who are domain experts in their field it is easier to write a high quality GSoC proposal likely to pass peer review and Google's own proposal review than for students who are not domain experts. If you are still really sure you want to invest the very considerable work to propose your own project, do the following before writing to the Boost mailing list with your own proposal:
    143143
    1441441. Research prior art i.e. provide proof in your approach email that you have researched alternative implementations in C++ and other languages of your project proposal. A list of pros and cons of those alternative implementations would be useful and show you really did study the problem.