On 28/02/2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > 2) | * Inspire young developers to begin participating in open > | source development; > 3) | * Help open source projects identify and bring in new > | developers and committers; > 5) | * Give students more exposure to real-world software > | development scenarios (e.g., distributed development, > | software licensing questions, mailing-list etiquette). > Points 2,3 and 5 can be summarized as "goal of GSOC is get fresh > blood". Only point 1 is about "goal of GSOC is to get code written". > This is too ambiguous to conclude anything from it. No. 2) is about *development*. Development is not necessarily a part of the usual job of Debian packagers. 5) is also about development. And I really believe that there's a very large gap between packaging and developping. Of course that depends on the packages, the packagers, and so on. But in the cases you try to address, it looks like glibc or X hackers aren't concerned. You also don't speak about 4) at all. > > Pointers? Ahah, no, you already said you haven't got any. > > It would be a good idea to ask jvm, ana, marga, tincho and lamby > about their opinion on that topic. Looks to me like the very first thing you should have done. > > Huh? You know about libre arbitre, right? If people apply to GSOC, > > their choice. I really don't know why you would forbid them to > > apply. So that they keep doing the dirty job before a release? > > Gah, you discovered my evil plans :-) I don't find that funny. At all. -- Cyril Brulebois
Attachment:
pgpCzdTkP_rW6.pgp
Description: PGP signature