On 09/04/2011 20:05, Andrew Sutton wrote:
Here's how this should work: 1. Identify the set of proposals for projects that you are interested in mentoring. 2. Evaluate the proposal and write your evaluation as a PRIVATE comment. 3. If you have questions of the student, you can write PUBLIC comments or send them an email. 4. Rank the proposal (I think 5 is the best this year). That would be the project that you want to mentor.
I've started ranking some bad proposals as a 1, since they removed the negative point system. I was told by the GSoC folks that we should use the average score to rank proposals rather than the cumulative one.
At the end of the week, you should have a list of 1 or 2 proposals that *you yourself* will mentor. If you are not offering to mentor the project, please don't review it as a 5. Otherwise, we end up with a case where we have to assign a mentor to a project that they aren't interested in. I don't think that this has worked out very well in the past.
Why is that scheme necessary? The score and the list of possible mentors are separate things. We could just select the top 10 projects with the highest average that have at least one mentor assigned to them, resolving the cases where the same mentor is assigned multiple times manually.