Blog syndication for GSoC - ers
 

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 May 2008, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Eugene Teo <eteo@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
>> >> With the new process for getting (and staying) on Planet Fedora in
>> >> place, how does it affect GSoC-ers ?
>> >>
>> >> Do we have their blogs on the Planet ? And, do they get FedoraPeople.org
>> >> accounts ?
>> >
>> > Is it possible to waive the requirement that my mentee has to be
>> > sponsored to a group other than the CLA group? I remember there were
>> > discussion about syndicating our mentees blogs to Planet Fedora?
>>
>> I'm going to forward this to seth vidal, who is in charge of such
>> things, and the Fedora Infrastructure team.
>>
>> Personally I think that the students/mentees will need access to the
>> wiki at some point or another. That can definitely count as a second
>> group. I've made it a point for my mentee to have a biography on the
>> wiki, and with the new wiki, it has it's own group in FAS.
>>
>> To actually put a blog on Planet Fedora, the mentees need to follow
>> the instructions seth posted a few days ago.
>>
>> They can be found here
>> http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/changes-at-planet-fedora/
>>
>
> My personal feeling is that individuals that want to be on planet really
> should be a fedora contributor. The barriers are pretty low (and going
> down even more all the time) to contribute.
>
> The question then is, why would someone want to be on Fedora planet but
> not be a fedora contributor?
>

These are our google summer of code students, more or less. In the
case of Smolt, I want Pavel sending patches to me instead of just
pushing them. The only reason is because of google requirements.
That's why you probably haven't seen his application to be a member of
hgsmolt.

Still, the wiki's a group, no?

-Yaakov

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list

Blog syndication for GSoC - ers
 

On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 23:22 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > They can be found here
> > http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/changes-at-planet-fedora/
> >
>
> My personal feeling is that individuals that want to be on planet really
> should be a fedora contributor. The barriers are pretty low (and going
> down even more all the time) to contribute.
>
> The question then is, why would someone want to be on Fedora planet but
> not be a fedora contributor?

+1

-sv


_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list

Blog syndication for GSoC - ers
 

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:01 AM, Karsten Wade <karstenwade@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It would be but I get the feeling that some aren't joining or aren't
>> allowed to because of google rules (I have no idea about either of
>> these, someone please correct me)
>
> Well, AIUI Google's whole point of getting the students connected
> months ago was so they could join the projects and so forth.
>
> If there are any students who haven't got their FAS account ... why? Etc.
>
> Google mainly wants the students to fit in with the project, under our
> own regular processes. Where they exert influence is in, for example,
> requiring the students to work on their own code and not be a a team
> working on a module, etc. I presume this is mainly to let them tie
> expenditure to effort directly, without team effects.

This is more or less 'it' in a nutshell. There is one extra
requirement that they have a uploadable set of files, mainly for legal
reasons. That's pretty much all there is to it.

In my case, I've asked pavel to email me patches for git. The
reasoning is that we'll have a log of emails complete with files that
can be tarballed and submitted to Google easily. I've asked him not
to ask for permission to participate in our git instance, although he
really does need to sign up for our trac. He also needs to be signed
up for the wiki, and a few mailing lists. His participation is
supposed to be the same as anyone else's with the notable exception of
the 'hgsmolt' group.

-Yaakov

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list

Blog syndication for GSoC - ers
 

On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 23:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:

> Alternatively, perhaps we should just have an GSoC group? These guys
> are
> technically contributors...

I didn't realize this discussion was cross-posted, I already sent my
agreement to this idea to the other thread. Having a group 'gsoc_2008'
or 'summercoders_2008' could help more than just this problem. As was
said elsewhere, these _are_ Fedora contributors, but they don't all fit
directly in to an existing group, or their contributions are being
filtered outside of the group.

- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list

Blog syndication for GSoC - ers
 

On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:

>
> On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 23:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> > Alternatively, perhaps we should just have an GSoC group? These guys
> > are
> > technically contributors...
>
> I didn't realize this discussion was cross-posted, I already sent my
> agreement to this idea to the other thread. Having a group 'gsoc_2008'
> or 'summercoders_2008' could help more than just this problem. As was
> said elsewhere, these _are_ Fedora contributors, but they don't all fit
> directly in to an existing group, or their contributions are being
> filtered outside of the group.
>

Why not just gsoc? I don't understand what we gain from the _2008?

-Mike

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list

Blog syndication for GSoC - ers
 

On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 10:28 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
>
> >
> > On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 23:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >
> > > Alternatively, perhaps we should just have an GSoC group? These guys
> > > are
> > > technically contributors...
> >
> > I didn't realize this discussion was cross-posted, I already sent my
> > agreement to this idea to the other thread. Having a group 'gsoc_2008'
> > or 'summercoders_2008' could help more than just this problem. As was
> > said elsewhere, these _are_ Fedora contributors, but they don't all fit
> > directly in to an existing group, or their contributions are being
> > filtered outside of the group.
> >
>
> Why not just gsoc? I don't understand what we gain from the _2008?

Gain, not sure. Lose, the ability to differentiate between groups.

A main purpose of GSoC is to get more coders into more projects.

For this reason, all students who stick around Fedora should be in other
groups. Their continued presence in "last year's group" should *not* be
construed as an ongoing contributor effort. By the end of this Summer,
the group is essentially defunct. If that is the only group someone is
in, and six months later ... it's still the only group, then they aren't
contributing to any coding projects. If they move on to Ambassadors,
then they are in another group, are contributing, etc.

Does that make sense?

For a similar reason, I recommend a generic name. Maybe all interns and
summer coders could be in the group. That way we can include the
Finnish Summer Code effort into this, and any RHT interns that aren't
part of another group (yet.)

- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list

Blog syndication for GSoC - ers
 

On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:

>
> On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 10:28 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 23:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alternatively, perhaps we should just have an GSoC group? These guys
> > > > are
> > > > technically contributors...
> > >
> > > I didn't realize this discussion was cross-posted, I already sent my
> > > agreement to this idea to the other thread. Having a group 'gsoc_2008'
> > > or 'summercoders_2008' could help more than just this problem. As was
> > > said elsewhere, these _are_ Fedora contributors, but they don't all fit
> > > directly in to an existing group, or their contributions are being
> > > filtered outside of the group.
> > >
> >
> > Why not just gsoc? I don't understand what we gain from the _2008?
>
> Gain, not sure. Lose, the ability to differentiate between groups.
>
> A main purpose of GSoC is to get more coders into more projects.
>
> For this reason, all students who stick around Fedora should be in other
> groups. Their continued presence in "last year's group" should *not* be
> construed as an ongoing contributor effort. By the end of this Summer,
> the group is essentially defunct. If that is the only group someone is
> in, and six months later ... it's still the only group, then they aren't
> contributing to any coding projects. If they move on to Ambassadors,
> then they are in another group, are contributing, etc.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> For a similar reason, I recommend a generic name. Maybe all interns and
> summer coders could be in the group. That way we can include the
> Finnish Summer Code effort into this, and any RHT interns that aren't
> part of another group (yet.)
>

In 2009, what use will the gsoc_2008 group be? I had assumed that at the
end of summery 2008, the gsoc group would be cleared out except for admins
and sponsors. Similar to what would happen with ols.

-Mike

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list

Blog syndication for GSoC - ers
 

On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 12:46 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 10:28 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 23:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Alternatively, perhaps we should just have an GSoC group? These guys
> > > > > are
> > > > > technically contributors...
> > > >
> > > > I didn't realize this discussion was cross-posted, I already sent my
> > > > agreement to this idea to the other thread. Having a group 'gsoc_2008'
> > > > or 'summercoders_2008' could help more than just this problem. As was
> > > > said elsewhere, these _are_ Fedora contributors, but they don't all fit
> > > > directly in to an existing group, or their contributions are being
> > > > filtered outside of the group.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why not just gsoc? I don't understand what we gain from the _2008?
> >
> > Gain, not sure. Lose, the ability to differentiate between groups.
> >
> > A main purpose of GSoC is to get more coders into more projects.
> >
> > For this reason, all students who stick around Fedora should be in other
> > groups. Their continued presence in "last year's group" should *not* be
> > construed as an ongoing contributor effort. By the end of this Summer,
> > the group is essentially defunct. If that is the only group someone is
> > in, and six months later ... it's still the only group, then they aren't
> > contributing to any coding projects. If they move on to Ambassadors,
> > then they are in another group, are contributing, etc.
> >
> > Does that make sense?
> >
> > For a similar reason, I recommend a generic name. Maybe all interns and
> > summer coders could be in the group. That way we can include the
> > Finnish Summer Code effort into this, and any RHT interns that aren't
> > part of another group (yet.)
> >
>
> In 2009, what use will the gsoc_2008 group be? I had assumed that at the
> end of summery 2008, the gsoc group would be cleared out except for admins
> and sponsors. Similar to what would happen with ols.
>

I think what Karsten is saying (maybe) is that remembering to clear our
the group is something ELSE we have to do. with a group with a year in
the name we can just delete the group w/o having to check who is in it,
or not.

-sv


_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list

Blog syndication for GSoC - ers
 

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 01:54:08PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 12:46 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 10:28 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 23:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Alternatively, perhaps we should just have an GSoC group? These guys
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > technically contributors...
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't realize this discussion was cross-posted, I already sent my
> > > > > agreement to this idea to the other thread. Having a group 'gsoc_2008'
> > > > > or 'summercoders_2008' could help more than just this problem. As was
> > > > > said elsewhere, these _are_ Fedora contributors, but they don't all fit
> > > > > directly in to an existing group, or their contributions are being
> > > > > filtered outside of the group.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why not just gsoc? I don't understand what we gain from the _2008?
> > >
> > > Gain, not sure. Lose, the ability to differentiate between groups.
> > >
> > > A main purpose of GSoC is to get more coders into more projects.
> > >
> > > For this reason, all students who stick around Fedora should be in other
> > > groups. Their continued presence in "last year's group" should *not* be
> > > construed as an ongoing contributor effort. By the end of this Summer,
> > > the group is essentially defunct. If that is the only group someone is
> > > in, and six months later ... it's still the only group, then they aren't
> > > contributing to any coding projects. If they move on to Ambassadors,
> > > then they are in another group, are contributing, etc.
> > >
> > > Does that make sense?
> > >
> > > For a similar reason, I recommend a generic name. Maybe all interns and
> > > summer coders could be in the group. That way we can include the
> > > Finnish Summer Code effort into this, and any RHT interns that aren't
> > > part of another group (yet.)
> > >
> >
> > In 2009, what use will the gsoc_2008 group be? I had assumed that at the
> > end of summery 2008, the gsoc group would be cleared out except for admins
> > and sponsors. Similar to what would happen with ols.
> >
>
> I think what Karsten is saying (maybe) is that remembering to clear our
> the group is something ELSE we have to do. with a group with a year in
> the name we can just delete the group w/o having to check who is in it,
> or not.

Or, really, shouldn't the student be included in some existing group
now, and not create a new gsoc group at all? If the point is to get
them involved in Fedora and to keep contributing after the summer is
over, then being a part of a group that's directly related to the work
they're doing, not how they're being mentored via GSOC, makes sense to
me.

Yes, we can create groups if they're beneficial, but being in the
sysadmin-web group, or the gittransifex group, would seem to make more
sense.


--
Matt Domsch
Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO
linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list

Blog syndication for GSoC - ers
 

On Tue, 27 May 2008, Matt Domsch wrote:

> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 01:54:08PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 12:46 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 10:28 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 23:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alternatively, perhaps we should just have an GSoC group? These guys
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > technically contributors...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't realize this discussion was cross-posted, I already sent my
> > > > > > agreement to this idea to the other thread. Having a group 'gsoc_2008'
> > > > > > or 'summercoders_2008' could help more than just this problem. As was
> > > > > > said elsewhere, these _are_ Fedora contributors, but they don't all fit
> > > > > > directly in to an existing group, or their contributions are being
> > > > > > filtered outside of the group.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why not just gsoc? I don't understand what we gain from the _2008?
> > > >
> > > > Gain, not sure. Lose, the ability to differentiate between groups.
> > > >
> > > > A main purpose of GSoC is to get more coders into more projects.
> > > >
> > > > For this reason, all students who stick around Fedora should be in other
> > > > groups. Their continued presence in "last year's group" should *not* be
> > > > construed as an ongoing contributor effort. By the end of this Summer,
> > > > the group is essentially defunct. If that is the only group someone is
> > > > in, and six months later ... it's still the only group, then they aren't
> > > > contributing to any coding projects. If they move on to Ambassadors,
> > > > then they are in another group, are contributing, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Does that make sense?
> > > >
> > > > For a similar reason, I recommend a generic name. Maybe all interns and
> > > > summer coders could be in the group. That way we can include the
> > > > Finnish Summer Code effort into this, and any RHT interns that aren't
> > > > part of another group (yet.)
> > > >
> > >
> > > In 2009, what use will the gsoc_2008 group be? I had assumed that at the
> > > end of summery 2008, the gsoc group would be cleared out except for admins
> > > and sponsors. Similar to what would happen with ols.
> > >
> >
> > I think what Karsten is saying (maybe) is that remembering to clear our
> > the group is something ELSE we have to do. with a group with a year in
> > the name we can just delete the group w/o having to check who is in it,
> > or not.
>
> Or, really, shouldn't the student be included in some existing group
> now, and not create a new gsoc group at all? If the point is to get
> them involved in Fedora and to keep contributing after the summer is
> over, then being a part of a group that's directly related to the work
> they're doing, not how they're being mentored via GSOC, makes sense to
> me.
>
> Yes, we can create groups if they're beneficial, but being in the
> sysadmin-web group, or the gittransifex group, would seem to make more
> sense.
>

Some of these guys are just working on and committing code. And some of
that code isn't hosted with us.

-Mike

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list