Or... it helped mentors know what students they didn't mentor were up to.
Flow
Didn't we had mandatory weekly blog posts and a joined MUC for this?
danielhas left
zinidhas left
Kev
Not exactly, no.
Kev
The blog posts are public-facing and are a summary of the technical activity.
Kev
The weekly meetings are for keeping in touch and seeing how things are going and an opportunity to discuss issues, etc.
Flow
Nothing which justifies the tradeoff of holding a weekly meeting across all mentors and particanpts
Alexhas joined
intosi
I disagree.
Kev
It doesn't have to be a weekly MUC meeting, naturally. But I think *something* of that nature is vital in trying to encourage a culture of being team players.
Kev
Surely you must have similar setups in other groups you're with - at work or with customers or whatever?
vanitasvitaehas left
vanitasvitaehas left
Flow
Kev, if we work all on the same project
intosi
We're part of the same organisation.
Flow
But weekly mandatory meetings with all particpants who work on different projects are counterproductive
intosi
Surely you have colleagues who work on other projects, and it makes sense to keep a sense of what's doing on there.
intosi
I know I do.
Flow
And the XSF is the only GSOC org who did that I'm aware of
Ge0rGhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
vanitasvitaehas joined
vanitasvitaehas joined
jubalhhas joined
winfriedhas left
Flow
And the comparison with a proffesional paid environment seems odd. As spare time mentor I have to carefully decide how I spend my time, and those weekly meetings yielded nothing in return for me, and possibly for my student. If there had been another XSF GSOC project I had been interrested in, I would probably get in direct contact with the related mentor and student.
Flow
Actually that is what I did in 2015 when OMEMO was developed
jonasw
Flow, but then, getting in contact with specific mentors incurs O(n²) cost "if everyone did that"
jonasw
while a meeting can be O(n)
Link Mauve
Flow, the only other org I was following some GSoCs ago was also holding a similar chat meeting with all students working on different projects.
Link Mauve
(Tatoeba.)
Flow
Link Mauve, a mandatory weekly meeting?
Flow
jonasw, true, but that assumes that everyone wants to know what everyone else does
Link Mauve
Yeah.
Kev
The biggest gain is probably ensuring that no student feels that they're on their own, or stuck with their mentor if they're not getting on, or the like.
jonasw
yeah, "if everyone did that"
Flow
Link Mauve, and there where different codebases involved? Was Tatoea acting as umbrella org?
Kev
In the happy path lots of the protections that an Admin has to put in place aren't as necessary.
Kev
But they're there because experience says that when things go wrong they can go very wrong unless you keep on top of things.
Link Mauve
Flow, different codebases (the current PHP-based tatoeba2, a totally new Django version, the Qt software Anki, and I think something else too).
Ge0rGhas left
Flow
I think is sufficent to tell the students that they can contact the org admin if they having issues which they can't resolve with the mentor, it doesn't need a weekly meeting for that
Link Mauve
Flow, I’ve noticed that many newcomers tend not to think about going to the rooms of other projects.
Link Mauve
Maybe because IM is not fully part of their workflow, or a myriad of other reasons.
Link Mauve
Flow, also some people tend not to reach for help when they feel overwhelmed or lost, I know I have that tendency.
Flow
Link Mauve, I don't follow, sorry. This is not about having a joined MUC for GSOC, but about whether or neet it needs another additional mandatory weekly meeting
Link Mauve
It has affected me quite a lot in the past, until I started seriously working on that issue, people around me would only notice when it was very late.
Link Mauve
Flow, looking at other years, there was exactly no discussion in said MUC outside of the weekly meetings.
Flow
Link Mauve, there surely was discussion between mentor and student
Link Mauve
Maybe in private, and some in the project’s room, but I didn’t see any of that in the shared room.
Flow
And I didn't expect that to happen
jubalhhas left
jubalhhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
hanneshas joined
pep.has left
vanitasvitaehas left
vanitasvitaehas left
vanitasvitaehas joined
vanitasvitaehas left
vanitasvitaehas left
vanitasvitaehas joined
Ge0rGhas left
goffihas left
goffihas joined
vanitasvitaehas joined
vanitasvitaehas joined
Ge0rGhas left
remkohas joined
Tobiashas left
vanitasvitaehas joined
hanneshas joined
edhelashas left
Ge0rGhas left
lskdjfhas joined
hanneshas joined
jubalhhas left
remkohas joined
Ge0rGhas left
edhelashas left
edhelashas joined
zinidhas left
waqashas left
remkohas joined
Guushas left
Ge0rGhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
blablahas left
suzyohas joined
Guushas left
Ge0rGhas left
Bunnehhas left
Bunnehhas joined
hanneshas joined
remkohas joined
jubalhhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
lumihas joined
la|r|mahas joined
jubalhhas joined
blablahas left
hanneshas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Syndacehas left
Syndacehas joined
danielhas joined
vanitasvitaehas left
vanitasvitaehas left
lskdjfhas joined
Zashhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Alexhas left
jubalhhas left
vanitasvitaehas joined
winfriedhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Martinhas left
Steve Killehas joined
vanitasvitaehas left
Alexhas joined
goffihas left
Ge0rGhas left
Steve Killehas left
la|r|mahas left
la|r|mahas joined
lumihas left
lskdjfhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
remkohas joined
ralphmhas left
moparisthebesthas joined
moparisthebesthas left
blablahas left
moparisthebesthas left
remkohas joined
Martinhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
danielhas left
goffihas joined
lskdjfhas joined
jubalhhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
lumihas joined
vanitasvitaehas left
remkohas left
remkohas joined
ralphmhas joined
blablahas left
Ge0rGhas left
winfriedhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Martinhas left
blablahas left
Martinhas joined
Alexhas left
hanneshas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Martinhas left
Steve Killehas joined
Ge0rGhas left
ralphmhas left
Steve Killehas left
Ge0rGhas left
Flow
Shouldn't there be an edge from "Rejected" to "Experimental" in xep1 § 8.1?
Ge0rGhas left
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
tuxhas left
Ge0rGhas left
blablahas left
jubalhhas left
Ge0rGhas left
hanneshas joined
hanneshas joined
Dave Cridland
Flow, Hmmm. Possibly. I think Council should probably be able to fish things out of Rejected etc, and also push things back from Proposed to Experimental (which I think has happened).
Ge0rGhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Kev
I've whinged about this for years, but never got traction with anyone else to fix it.
Kev
No, Council can't technically fish things out of Rejected, or from Proposed back to Experimental, although past Councils have ignored this and done it anyway.
Kev
I think XEP1 should be fixed to allow both.
Flow
I don't think that it needs council to get from rejected to experimental
jubalhhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
danielhas joined
lumihas left
Steve Killehas joined
Ge0rGhas left
hanneshas joined
jubalhhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Alexhas joined
lumihas joined
lskdjfhas joined
matlaghas left
Ge0rGhas left
waqashas joined
waqashas left
hanneshas joined
jubalhhas joined
Guushas left
ralphmhas left
Steve Killehas left
Dave Cridland
Flow, I think it probably does. It's the moral equivalent of resubmitting as a new ProtoXEP.
Guushas left
Ge0rG
But without a new number, I hope
Guushas left
la|r|mahas joined
Ge0rGhas left
remkohas joined
hanneshas joined
vanitasvitaehas left
Lancehas joined
hanneshas joined
lskdjfhas joined
hanneshas joined
Ge0rGhas left
ralphmhas joined
remkohas joined
brahas left
brahas joined
blablahas left
ralphmhas joined
winfriedhas left
Ge0rGhas left
ralphmhas left
ralphmhas joined
Flow
How can it be the "moral equivalent" if the previous XEP state was Experimental. What justifies a downgrade to ProtoXEP?