[GSoC 2020] Extraordinary circumstances and early birds
Hi Boost Community, I am Madhur, an active contributor to Boost.Multiprecision. I am from India and am observing that summer internships (for students in the penultimate year) are being canceled because of COVID-19. This is a huge loss to brilliant and enthusiastic students as they will not be able to gain experience. This could be an opportunity for Boost to mentor these students who don't have prior experience with open source or with a rich C++ background. If a student is ready to devote himself/herself then I guess there's enough time to learn (till Jun 1) about C++/Project to get things rolling.
FYI, you are late.
Mateusz posted in other thread about the student being late (as of today) but the GSoC application deadline is due March 31, which I would wholeheartedly agree in case of normal circumstances. The point I'm trying to make here is that in these extraordinary circumstances: - should Boost neglect the "early bird" and treat all applicants equally? - should Boost compensate for the lack of work samples with the history of the student (like academic records, academic projects, research papers)? - should Boost consider other factors too while selecting the student this year like the education level (seniority level: 4th/5th year of study or PhD)? For example, if a student had taken a course in numerical algorithms/computational algorithms then that applicant's insights could be beneficial to Boost.Multiprecision than other applicants. If a student performs well in the competency test then it indicates that the student would do the job and I think the selection criteria should be tweaked so as to consider that students who lost internships and otherwise who could be a great value to the library (even for a short time - GSoC) don't get neglected. Well, these are my views as a student. Eagerly waiting for your thoughts! Thank you for having time to read this unusually long message :) -- Sent from: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-Dev-f2600599.html
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 8:04 PM madhur4127 via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Hi Boost Community,
This could be an opportunity for Boost to mentor these students who don't have prior experience with open source or with a rich C++ background.
When it comes to a program like GSoC it is not for the beginners and learning when it comes to being a part of an advanced project like Boost C++ Library. We do expect students to have a prior background in C++. No mentor would ever have time for babysitting. Even in these circumstances almost none of us would have extra time cause everyone would be working from home and taking care of the family.
FYI, you are late.
Mateusz posted in other thread about the student being late (as of today) but the GSoC application deadline is due March 31, which I would wholeheartedly agree in case of normal circumstances.
The point I'm trying to make here is that in these extraordinary circumstances: - should Boost neglect the "early bird" and treat all applicants equally?
That would be unfair to the students who have come early and contributed to the library.
- should Boost compensate for the lack of work samples with the history of the student (like academic records, academic projects, research papers)?
I strongly disagree with this point and especially when it comes to India my objections for this becomes even stronger. Opensource contributions and especially contributions to the boost stays at most priority. Work which they have done with us by contributing to boost makes us see his/her ability clearly. We don't know how much contribution someone has done in academic projects or research paper, how strong knowledge he/she possesses for the topic.
- should Boost consider other factors too while selecting the student this year like the education level (seniority level: 4th/5th year of study or PhD)? For example, if a student had taken a course in numerical algorithms/computational algorithms then that applicant's insights could be beneficial to Boost.Multiprecision than other applicants.
It surely gives an upper hand to the student but code always speaks more than any other paper and records. If a student performs well in the competency test then it indicates that the
student would do the job and I think the selection criteria should be tweaked so as to consider that students who lost internships and otherwise who could be a great value to the library (even for a short time - GSoC) don't get neglected.
Most valuable person to a library is someone who sticks around for a longer time. Anyways boost just can not select all the students they want boost gets a particular number of slots in GSoC and it is limited and changing any criteria now is too late and unfair to others. Thank you, Pranam Lashkari
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 15:34, madhur4127 via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
This is a huge loss to brilliant and enthusiastic students as they will not be able to gain experience.
Past years experience and statistics may form a basis to challenge your enthusiasm.
This could be an opportunity for Boost to mentor these students who don't have prior experience with open source or with a rich C++ background. If a student is ready to devote himself/herself then I guess there's enough time to learn (till Jun 1) about C++/Project to get things rolling.
No, there is not enough time. Let me put it straight: readiness to devote is not enough to guarantee successful completion of GSoC project as not enough are highest grades on completion of a mathematics or algorithms course. The current phase is the Student Application Period which lasts from March 16, 2020 until March 31, 2020. It is March 28 and students appear out of the blue "looking for contact with mentor" with a long list of achievements, with 8/10 score in C++ and with zero idea about what they want to develop. They often don't even know which Boost library they want to apply with. That clears all the rockstar grades from their CS courses, doesn't it. On the other hand, there is a handful of students who arrive early, in January/February, find bugs they want to fix, features they want to develop, who give it a try hacking something for a Boost library (I'm speaking of GIL here), who know how to run g++ from command line, who seek help asking specific questions, who eventually submit pull requests and who are persistent enough to endure the nitpicking process the review of their PR. And they do it before the Student Application Period even starts! I wish Boost GSoC introduced this policy next year [1] "Some organizations make it a must for you to fix a bug in their code base before submitting a proposal but some do not. Your chances are always high if you can fix a bug in the code." [1] https://medium.com/@akshikawijesundara/google-summer-of-code-dos-and-do-not-...
FYI, you are late.
Mateusz posted in other thread about the student being late (as of today) but the GSoC application deadline is due March 31, which I would wholeheartedly agree in case of normal circumstances. [...] The point I'm trying to make here is that in these extraordinary circumstances:
FYI, the GSoC does not recognise any extraordinary circumstances https://opensource.googleblog.com/ https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/
If a student performs well in the competency test then it indicates that the student would do the job
No, solving the competency test gives no guarantees. The competency test is equivalent of "show me, tell me" questions at the start of driving licence test in UK [2], before you start driving! Answering those questions brilliantly does not guarantee a learner will not crash the car in the first junction after leaving the car park. [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/car-show-me-tell-me-vehicle-safet...
and I think the selection criteria should be tweaked so as to consider that students who lost internships and otherwise who could be a great value to the library (even for a short time - GSoC) don't get neglected.
IMO, Boost cannot afford to be a backup plan for any students. If students had not planned to apply for GSoC with a project for Boost in 2019 or very early in 2020, they will not be ready to develop and complete a project. No tweaking is necessary and it any changes would be unfair, unless Google/GSoC makes any official changes, then we will have to comply. FYI, the selection process is clear and publicly available: https://google.github.io/gsocguides/mentor/selecting-a-student Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
The point I'm trying to make here is that in these extraordinary circumstances: - should Boost neglect the "early bird" and treat all applicants equally? - should Boost compensate for the lack of work samples with the history of the student (like academic records, academic projects, research papers)? Thanks for your observations, Madhur. I think it makes sense to look at all proposals that satisfy theformal requirements of timing and form. That being said, the proposal quality seems to be relativelyself-regulating. This is evident in the sense that the early birdshave already been in contact with us and asked detailedquestions. They have had an opportunity to incorporate theknowledge gained through this question-asking phase withinthe works of their proposals and their programming competencies. There is also an unremovable human factor. I think mostpeople dedicated to open source code have a certain(maybe even a large) portion of compassion about it.It is fun and pleasant to see this kind of passion growin the community. In general, the sudents who participatedactively early seem more into it in this non-written sense.This can be partly revealed in the proposals, but is alsocertain to be present within the mentor's mental recollectionsto some extent. Keep going in Boost!
Kind regards, Chris On Saturday, March 28, 2020, 9:15:19 PM GMT+1, Mateusz Loskot via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote: On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 15:34, madhur4127 via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
This is a huge loss to brilliant and enthusiastic students as they will not be able to gain experience.
Past years experience and statistics may form a basis to challenge your enthusiasm.
This could be an opportunity for Boost to mentor these students who don't have prior experience with open source or with a rich C++ background. If a student is ready to devote himself/herself then I guess there's enough time to learn (till Jun 1) about C++/Project to get things rolling.
No, there is not enough time. Let me put it straight: readiness to devote is not enough to guarantee successful completion of GSoC project as not enough are highest grades on completion of a mathematics or algorithms course. The current phase is the Student Application Period which lasts from March 16, 2020 until March 31, 2020. It is March 28 and students appear out of the blue "looking for contact with mentor" with a long list of achievements, with 8/10 score in C++ and with zero idea about what they want to develop. They often don't even know which Boost library they want to apply with. That clears all the rockstar grades from their CS courses, doesn't it. On the other hand, there is a handful of students who arrive early, in January/February, find bugs they want to fix, features they want to develop, who give it a try hacking something for a Boost library (I'm speaking of GIL here), who know how to run g++ from command line, who seek help asking specific questions, who eventually submit pull requests and who are persistent enough to endure the nitpicking process the review of their PR. And they do it before the Student Application Period even starts! I wish Boost GSoC introduced this policy next year [1] "Some organizations make it a must for you to fix a bug in their code base before submitting a proposal but some do not. Your chances are always high if you can fix a bug in the code." [1] https://medium.com/@akshikawijesundara/google-summer-of-code-dos-and-do-not-...
FYI, you are late.
Mateusz posted in other thread about the student being late (as of today) but the GSoC application deadline is due March 31, which I would wholeheartedly agree in case of normal circumstances. [...] The point I'm trying to make here is that in these extraordinary circumstances:
FYI, the GSoC does not recognise any extraordinary circumstances https://opensource.googleblog.com/ https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/
If a student performs well in the competency test then it indicates that the student would do the job
No, solving the competency test gives no guarantees. The competency test is equivalent of "show me, tell me" questions at the start of driving licence test in UK [2], before you start driving! Answering those questions brilliantly does not guarantee a learner will not crash the car in the first junction after leaving the car park. [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/car-show-me-tell-me-vehicle-safet...
and I think the selection criteria should be tweaked so as to consider that students who lost internships and otherwise who could be a great value to the library (even for a short time - GSoC) don't get neglected.
IMO, Boost cannot afford to be a backup plan for any students. If students had not planned to apply for GSoC with a project for Boost in 2019 or very early in 2020, they will not be ready to develop and complete a project. No tweaking is necessary and it any changes would be unfair, unless Google/GSoC makes any official changes, then we will have to comply. FYI, the selection process is clear and publicly available: https://google.github.io/gsocguides/mentor/selecting-a-student Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Hi Boost community, as I'm in charge of the admin of Google Summer of Code for Boost, I will simply said that I mostly agree with the answers from Pranam, Mateusz and Christopher. To resume in a few points: 1- we expect students to contact us early. Not only because we want to have motivated students, but also because we need time to know them and help them writing a good proposal, making ideas clear and answer their questions (I mean their technical, precise and accurate questions). If students contact us at the very end of the initial process, I'm sorry but we won't have time to devote to them. It would be unfair for all the others. 2- we expect students to have a good level in C++, I mean a really good level. We don't have time to babysit or teach them C++. The fact they had published good academic papers or received excellent grades in various topics is mostly irrelevant. It is relevant for other things, not for being selected as a GSoC student. We made it clear that we want code to be delivered and code to be contributed to the master branch of Boost. This code will be packaged in the next versions of Boost and should be of the same quality as the rest of the Boost libraries. It's challenging but we aim at excellence. Nothing less. And there are excellent C++ students. A lot! 3- for many years, we asked students to do a competency tests. It is used to give us an idea of who can and cannot do C++. I know it's far from perfect, but we use it more as a filter than a definitive way to prove a student should be chosen. And in general, many students cannot complete the test. 4- as far as I'm concerned, I do consider the academic level of the students. In the past, I had much better results with 4/5th year of PhD students as far as I'm concerned. But it is not a rule and not part of our selection process. It's just an observation. But if I have a last-minute poor proposal from a PhD student with 10 papers in international journals, and an excellent early proposal from a 1st year student, chances I will select the 1st year student anyway. Every year, my first task is to remove all the bad proposals. I don't even ask the rest of the mentors what they think about it, because it's too obvious the students will not be accepted. How do I know the students don't have what it takes to make a good GSoC? It's very simple: if I receive an empty document, it's a no. If I receive a resume without a proposal in it, it's a no. If I receive a proposal saying: I want to participate to open-source projects, it's a no. If I receive an email telling me they didn't have time to post the proposal before the last day, it's a no. I'm not caricaturing. Every year we have dozens of "proposals" (please allow me to put this word in between quotes) like what I described. You understand why I don't bother asking the other mentors now. Then we have the proposals of those students who took time to contact us, who took time to speak with us, who took time to show and convince use they can write good C++. These are the students we love to work with. I know our selection process is far from perfect (Mateusz has a lot of great ideas to improve it for example), but I think it is on average fair to all the students. Finally, I would like to thank Madhur for his excellent questions and I hope I answered to all of them. I found this debate very interesting and absolutely spot on. It's what I love about open-source! Cheers, David On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 7:13 PM Christopher Kormanyos via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The point I'm trying to make here is that in these extraordinary circumstances: - should Boost neglect the "early bird" and treat all applicants equally? - should Boost compensate for the lack of work samples with the history of the student (like academic records, academic projects, research papers)? Thanks for your observations, Madhur. I think it makes sense to look at all proposals that satisfy theformal requirements of timing and form. That being said, the proposal quality seems to be relativelyself-regulating. This is evident in the sense that the early birdshave already been in contact with us and asked detailedquestions. They have had an opportunity to incorporate theknowledge gained through this question-asking phase withinthe works of their proposals and their programming competencies. There is also an unremovable human factor. I think mostpeople dedicated to open source code have a certain(maybe even a large) portion of compassion about it.It is fun and pleasant to see this kind of passion growin the community. In general, the sudents who participatedactively early seem more into it in this non-written sense.This can be partly revealed in the proposals, but is alsocertain to be present within the mentor's mental recollectionsto some extent. Keep going in Boost!
Kind regards, Chris
On Saturday, March 28, 2020, 9:15:19 PM GMT+1, Mateusz Loskot via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 15:34, madhur4127 via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
This is a huge loss to brilliant and enthusiastic students as they will not be able to gain experience.
Past years experience and statistics may form a basis to challenge your enthusiasm.
This could be an opportunity for Boost to mentor these students who don't have prior experience with open source or with a rich C++ background. If a student is ready to devote himself/herself then I guess there's enough time to learn (till Jun 1) about C++/Project to get things rolling.
No, there is not enough time. Let me put it straight: readiness to devote is not enough to guarantee successful completion of GSoC project as not enough are highest grades on completion of a mathematics or algorithms course.
The current phase is the Student Application Period which lasts from March 16, 2020 until March 31, 2020.
It is March 28 and students appear out of the blue "looking for contact with mentor" with a long list of achievements, with 8/10 score in C++ and with zero idea about what they want to develop. They often don't even know which Boost library they want to apply with. That clears all the rockstar grades from their CS courses, doesn't it.
On the other hand, there is a handful of students who arrive early, in January/February, find bugs they want to fix, features they want to develop, who give it a try hacking something for a Boost library (I'm speaking of GIL here), who know how to run g++ from command line, who seek help asking specific questions, who eventually submit pull requests and who are persistent enough to endure the nitpicking process the review of their PR. And they do it before the Student Application Period even starts!
I wish Boost GSoC introduced this policy next year [1]
"Some organizations make it a must for you to fix a bug in their code base before submitting a proposal but some do not. Your chances are always high if you can fix a bug in the code."
[1] https://medium.com/@akshikawijesundara/google-summer-of-code-dos-and-do-not-...
FYI, you are late.
Mateusz posted in other thread about the student being late (as of today) but the GSoC application deadline is due March 31, which I would wholeheartedly agree in case of normal circumstances. [...] The point I'm trying to make here is that in these extraordinary circumstances:
FYI, the GSoC does not recognise any extraordinary circumstances https://opensource.googleblog.com/ https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/
If a student performs well in the competency test then it indicates that the student would do the job
No, solving the competency test gives no guarantees. The competency test is equivalent of "show me, tell me" questions at the start of driving licence test in UK [2], before you start driving! Answering those questions brilliantly does not guarantee a learner will not crash the car in the first junction after leaving the car park.
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/car-show-me-tell-me-vehicle-safet...
and I think the selection criteria should be tweaked so as to consider that students who lost internships and otherwise who could be a great value to the library (even for a short time - GSoC) don't get neglected.
IMO, Boost cannot afford to be a backup plan for any students. If students had not planned to apply for GSoC with a project for Boost in 2019 or very early in 2020, they will not be ready to develop and complete a project.
No tweaking is necessary and it any changes would be unfair, unless Google/GSoC makes any official changes, then we will have to comply. FYI, the selection process is clear and publicly available: https://google.github.io/gsocguides/mentor/selecting-a-student
Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On Mar 29, 2020, at 15:52, David Bellot via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
he fact they had published good academic papers or received excellent grades in various topics is mostly irrelevant.
As an academic person, I have to insert a little feeble word in defense of academia here. Papers are not like school grades. People have been through hellfire to get there. In my opinion, if somebody proposed to write code BASED on those papers you all should give them class-A consideration. Of course, If it far from their field of study, then it is once again somewhat irrelevant. Best Regards, Kostass Savvidis
On 29. Mar 2020, at 15:31, Kostas Savvidis via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Mar 29, 2020, at 15:52, David Bellot via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
he fact they had published good academic papers or received excellent grades in various topics is mostly irrelevant.
As an academic person, I have to insert a little feeble word in defense of academia here. Papers are not like school grades. People have been through hellfire to get there. In my opinion, if somebody proposed to write code BASED on those papers you all should give them class-A consideration. Of course, If it far from their field of study, then it is once again somewhat irrelevant.
Disclaimer: I am not participating in GSoC, I am just reading this with interest. Being also from academia, I like to disagree with you. You usually cannot tell how much of the paper content is really from the applicant. Most papers have several authors - at least in my field (particle physics). A high number of published papers is not a reliable predictor of excellence. It could be a sign for a hard worker or a sign for a someone who puts quantity before quality. Similarly, a low citation count per paper may not be a sign for a weak applicant. Someone who is too far ahead of the curve is not getting cited. Only the (boring) mainstream gets many citations. The quality and depth of the papers is more telling, but that is difficult to judge for someone outside of the field.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:31 AM Kostas Savvidis via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Mar 29, 2020, at 15:52, David Bellot via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
he fact they had published good academic papers or received excellent grades in various topics is mostly irrelevant.
As an academic person, I have to insert a little feeble word in defense of academia here. Papers are not like school grades. People have been through hellfire to get there. In my opinion, if somebody proposed to write code BASED on those papers you all should give them class-A consideration. Of course, If it far from their field of study, then it is once again somewhat irrelevant.
Thanks Kostas for mentioning it. and I do agree with you. And that's correct. I think my message was not clear enough. If they published something very relevant to what we want or could achieve in Boost, then by all means, we have to consider them. I was only referring, as you said, to the fact that having a long list of papers without connection to Boost or C++ or algorithms we're interested in, doesn't give them priority of other students. As I mentioned before, so far, by best GSoC experience has been with Master and PhD students. But if they can transform one of their paper into production-ready code, then it's even better.
participants (7)
-
Christopher Kormanyos -
David Bellot -
Hans Dembinski -
Kostas Savvidis -
madhur4127 -
Mateusz Loskot -
Pranam Lashkari