intosiOr... it helped mentors know what students they didn't mentor were up to.
FlowDidn't we had mandatory weekly blog posts and a joined MUC for this?
danielhas left
zinidhas left
KevNot exactly, no.
KevThe blog posts are public-facing and are a summary of the technical activity.
KevThe weekly meetings are for keeping in touch and seeing how things are going and an opportunity to discuss issues, etc.
FlowNothing which justifies the tradeoff of holding a weekly meeting across all mentors and particanpts
Alexhas joined
intosiI disagree.
KevIt 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.
KevSurely you must have similar setups in other groups you're with - at work or with customers or whatever?
vanitasvitaehas left
vanitasvitaehas left
FlowKev, if we work all on the same project
intosiWe're part of the same organisation.
FlowBut weekly mandatory meetings with all particpants who work on different projects are counterproductive
intosiSurely you have colleagues who work on other projects, and it makes sense to keep a sense of what's doing on there.
intosiI know I do.
FlowAnd 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
FlowAnd 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.
FlowActually that is what I did in 2015 when OMEMO was developed
jonaswFlow, but then, getting in contact with specific mentors incurs O(n²) cost "if everyone did that"
jonaswwhile a meeting can be O(n)
Link MauveFlow, 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.)
FlowLink Mauve, a mandatory weekly meeting?
Flowjonasw, true, but that assumes that everyone wants to know what everyone else does
Link MauveYeah.
KevThe 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.
jonaswyeah, "if everyone did that"
FlowLink Mauve, and there where different codebases involved? Was Tatoea acting as umbrella org?
KevIn the happy path lots of the protections that an Admin has to put in place aren't as necessary.
KevBut they're there because experience says that when things go wrong they can go very wrong unless you keep on top of things.
Link MauveFlow, different codebases (the current PHP-based tatoeba2, a totally new Django version, the Qt software Anki, and I think something else too).
Ge0rGhas left
FlowI 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 MauveFlow, I’ve noticed that many newcomers tend not to think about going to the rooms of other projects.
Link MauveMaybe because IM is not fully part of their workflow, or a myriad of other reasons.
Link MauveFlow, also some people tend not to reach for help when they feel overwhelmed or lost, I know I have that tendency.
FlowLink 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 MauveIt 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 MauveFlow, looking at other years, there was exactly no discussion in said MUC outside of the weekly meetings.
FlowLink Mauve, there surely was discussion between mentor and student
Link MauveMaybe in private, and some in the project’s room, but I didn’t see any of that in the shared room.
FlowAnd 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
FlowShouldn'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 CridlandFlow, 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
KevI've whinged about this for years, but never got traction with anyone else to fix it.
KevNo, 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.
KevI think XEP1 should be fixed to allow both.
FlowI 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 CridlandFlow, I think it probably does. It's the moral equivalent of resubmitting as a new ProtoXEP.
Guushas left
Ge0rGBut 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
FlowHow can it be the "moral equivalent" if the previous XEP state was Experimental. What justifies a downgrade to ProtoXEP?