community-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From solo...@apache.org
Subject [comdev-site] branch master updated: Update mentee-ranking-process.md
Date Mon, 07 Dec 2020 14:16:58 GMT
This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.

solomax pushed a commit to branch master
in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/comdev-site.git


The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
     new eb8e929  Update mentee-ranking-process.md
     new 2e072f2  Merge pull request #33 from cottage14/patch-18
eb8e929 is described below

commit eb8e929f94092e5e45886ac9a4059f5ce5409bd2
Author: Andrew Wetmore <andrew@cottage14.com>
AuthorDate: Sun Dec 6 10:57:03 2020 -0400

    Update mentee-ranking-process.md
    
    Edits to improve readability. Added a quick explanation of what Melange is.
---
 source/mentee-ranking-process.md | 136 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)

diff --git a/source/mentee-ranking-process.md b/source/mentee-ranking-process.md
index 900f6c0..35cd4fa 100644
--- a/source/mentee-ranking-process.md
+++ b/source/mentee-ranking-process.md
@@ -2,19 +2,19 @@
 title: Mentee Ranking Process
 ---
 
-This page describes the ranking process used by The Apache Software
-Foundation to evaluate mentee proposals.
+This page describes the ranking process The Apache Software
+Foundation uses to evaluate mentee proposals.
 
-The ranking process is designed to ensure the most promising looking
-applicants are assigned a mentor with an ASF project. The goal is *not* to
-identify the "best" projects for the ASF, but the best mentees that have
+The ranking process makes sure the most promising
+applicants get a mentor with an ASF project. The goal is *not* to
+identify the "best" projects for the ASF, but the best mentees who have
 applied to the ASF.
 
-Remember, mentoring is all about the mentee and open source as a whole, it
+Remember, mentoring is all about the mentee and open source as a whole. It
 is not about the mentors or their projects.
 
-Any ASF committer can help with the ranking, all you need to do is register
-as a potential mentor (you don't actually have to become a mentor).
+Any ASF committer can help with the ranking: all you need to do is register
+as a potential mentor (you don't actually have to _become_ a mentor).
 
 The instructions below described ranking proposals using the Google Summer
 of Code application.
@@ -22,41 +22,37 @@ of Code application.
 <a name="MenteeRankingProcess-ScoringSystem"></a>
 # Scoring System
 
-Projects are ranked using a scoring system as follows:
+We rank projects using this scoring system:
 
-##*Pre-Selection Phase* : done by mentor when accepting to be mentor of a given proposal
+##*Pre-Selection Phase* : a mentor does this when accepting to be mentor of a given proposal
 
 * if the proposal is for a project you will be mentoring and you feel the
-proposal looks good enough for you to commit your time to it then click the
-"I am willing to Mentor" button in Melange.
+proposal looks good enough for you to commit your time to it, click the
+"I am willing to Mentor" button in Melange (the software that administers the Google Summer
of Code).
 
-Please only offer to mentor a single project unless discussed on
-mentors@community.apache.org first. We encourage multiple mentors per project though.
+Please only offer to mentor a single project unless you have discussed why you should mentor
more than one on
+mentors@community.apache.org first. We encourage multiple mentors per project, though.
 
 Other community members are free to comment on proposals as they see fit.
-In the re-evaluation phase (see below) admins will use
+In the re-evaluation phase (see below) admins use
 comments provided by mentors and community members.
 
-##*Selection Phase* : done by mentor during ranking time
+##*Selection Phase* : a mentor does this during ranking time
 
-All scoring is done in the Google Docs spreadsheet that was sent to
-mentors@community.apache.org. Every Score must be followed by an explanation.
+In this phase mentors evaluate each proposal. We do all scoring in the Google Docs spreadsheet
shared on
+mentors@community.apache.org. Add an explanation to every score, using the criteria below,
to help admins in the later stages of evaluation.
 DO NOT ADD SCORES IN MELANGE! Use integer numbers only!
 
-In this phase mentors evaluate the proposal. Mentors are asked to add an
-explanation for each score added using the criteria below, this helps admins in
-the later stages of evaluation.
+_Please do not add scores outside these criteria._
 
-_Please do not add scores outside these criteria_
-
-Any questions can be addressed to the admins on mentors@community.apache.org
+Address any questions to the admins on mentors@community.apache.org
 
 * Did the student demonstrate that they have the required skills to start
 the project and learn what's needed along the way? And how happy are we
 with the results? (0-4 points)
 
 * How do we rate the quality of the student's proposal, in terms of
-technical relevance, completeness, awareness of issues, realistic planning
+technical relevance, completeness, awareness of issues, and realistic planning
 (less copy and paste)? (0-4 points)
 
 * How does the mentor rate the student's chances of success, based on an
@@ -64,45 +60,45 @@ in-person (face-to-face, video, audio, IRC,  email) interview? (0-3 points,
or
 0-1 if email interview only)
 
 * How do we rate the originality of the student's contributions to the
-proposal? (0-2 points, 0 if mentor provides proposal, 1 if student builds
+proposal? (0-2 points: 0 if mentor provides proposal, 1 if student builds
 proposal from suggested ideas, 2 if proposal is original idea from student)
 
-* Did student work with the project community, on our public mailing lists,
+* Did the student work with the project community, on our public mailing lists,
 to create the proposal? (0-2 points)
 
-* Did student explicitly indicate how much time they are going to dedicate
+* Did the student explicitly indicate how much time they are going to dedicate
 to GSoC for the project's duration, and mention any other committments that
-could conflict with the project (holidays, course work, etc.)? And are we happy with
+could conflict with the project (holidays, course work, etc.)? Are we happy with
 this commitment (it should be their major occupation during the summer)? (0-2 points)
 
-* Did student respond quickly to mentor inquiries? (0-2 points)
+* Did the student respond quickly to mentor inquiries? (0-2 points)
 
 * Are you or your student affiliated in any way (e.g. share(d) the same employer or will
do so in the foreseeable future, are
-you his or her adviser at university, personal relationships, etc.)? (yes/no)
+you their adviser at university, personal relationships, etc.)? (yes/no)
 
 
 Other community members are free to comment on proposals inside Melange as they see fit.
-However, DO NOT ADD A SCORE TO THE PROPOSAL. In the re-evaluation phase (see below) admins
will use
+However, DO NOT ADD A SCORE TO THE PROPOSAL. In the re-evaluation phase (see below) admins
use
 comments provided by mentors and community members.
 
 At the end of the selection phase proposals to be considered for support
 will have a score of between 0 and +19, and should only have scores from
 the assigned mentor and admins (at this stage admin scores are only
-corrections). The admins will check in during the selection phase
-periodically to look for problems by scanning the scores (i.e. anything
+corrections). The admins check in periodically during the selection phase
+to look for problems by scanning the scores (i.e. anything
 over +19 has an error). 
 
 At the end of this selection phase we know the minimum score a proposal
 must have in order to be selected (i.e. if we have 30 slots, projects with
 a score at or above the project ranked 30th will go forward to the next
-phase). Before progressing to the next phase admins will read all proposals
-either above or near the minimum score and ensure that there are no errors
+phase). Before progressing to the next phase, admins read all proposals
+above or near the minimum score and ensure that there are no errors
 in this phase of ranking.
 
-##*Re-Evaluation* : done by admins during or after selection phase
+##*Re-Evaluation* : admins do this during or after selection phase
 
 In this phase admins evaluate all proposals above the required score and
-others that are just below it. We check those just below the required score
+those that are just below it. We check those just below the required score
 to ensure that the scores have been equally assigned across all proposals
 (some mentors are more generous than others).
 
@@ -110,15 +106,15 @@ to ensure that the scores have been equally assigned across all proposals
 proposal? (0-4 points)
 * Does the mentor show an understanding of how to mentor a student? (0-4
 points)
-* Discretionary score, admins may use their experience and the comments of
-community members to mark a proposal up or down (-4 to +4)
+* Discretionary score: admins may use their experience and the comments of
+community members to mark a proposal up or down (-4 to +4).
 * Admin discretionary points (-10 to +10 points, only used to break
-"deadlocks" across cut-off point, see below)
+"deadlocks" across the cut-off point, see below).
 
-The admins will transfer the scores to melange.
+The admins transfer the scores to Melange.
 
 At the end of this phase there is a short window for the community to
-verify the admins work before the final selection is made.
+verify the admins' work before the final selection is made.
 
 <a name="MenteeRankingProcess-Whatarewelookingforinagoodproposal?"></a>
 # What are we looking for in a good proposal?
@@ -126,34 +122,34 @@ verify the admins work before the final selection is made.
 In general we much prefer new mentees to repeat mentees. The goal is to
 enable new people to learn about open source software development.
 
-In past years we have seen some consistent patterns in quality proposals:
+In past years we have seen some consistent patterns in high-quality proposals:
 
-* detailed proposal with realistic and measurable milestones
-* engagement with the project communication during proposal writing
-* willingness to engage with the ranking process (i.e. responding to
+* Detailed proposal with realistic and measurable milestones
+* Engagement with the project communication during proposal writing
+* Willingness to engage with the ranking process (i.e. responding to
 requests for more info)
-* acknowledgment of weaknesses in existing skill set and a plan for
+* Acknowledgment of weaknesses in existing skill set and a plan for
 addressing those weaknesses
 
 <a name="MenteeRankingProcess-Warningsignsinabadproposal"></a>
 # Warning signs in a bad proposal
 
-* no engagement with project community
-* lack of understanding of what open source is and how it is developed
-* indication of external commitments (exams, job etc.)
-* previous failures within the mentor programme
+* No engagement with project community
+* Lack of understanding of what open source is and how it is developed
+* Indication of external commitments (exams, job etc.)
+* Previous failures within the mentor programme
 
 <a name="MenteeRankingProcess-Whathappensnext?"></a>
 # What happens next?
 
-Towards the end of the ranking period Google will announce how many slots
-the ASF has been given. Shortly after that we will ask ASF committers to
-stop ranking and the ASF GSoC admins will work to adjust the rankings to
+Towards the end of the ranking period Google announces how many slots
+the ASF has. Shortly after that we ask ASF committers to
+stop ranking, and the ASF GSoC admins adjust the rankings to
 ensure that the right number of projects are ranked above the cut-off line.
 
-In this last stage we avoid adjusting community rankings, however, in past
+In this last stage we avoid adjusting community rankings; however, in past
 years there has been a cluster of students with equal rankings around the
-cut-off point. In this case the admins will cast a final vote on those
+cut-off point. In this case the admins cast a final vote on those
 projects to ensure that Google can assign awards as appropriate.
 
 For example, imagine that 7 is the number of points that causes the
@@ -168,9 +164,9 @@ clustering, and we have the following projects ranked at 7:
 Now imagine the cut-off point for selection is currently at the third
 position (C).
 
-The admins need to look a these projects and ensure they are ordered in the
+The admins need to look at these projects and ensure they are ordered in the
 webapp to make the most appropriate appear at the top of the list. This
-ensures that they are most likely to be awarded a slot. So we may end up
+ensures that they are most likely to receive a slot. So we may end up
 with:
 
 # B
@@ -186,33 +182,33 @@ previous ranking stages as possible.
 
 The problem becomes a little more complicated when we remember that the
 cut-off point may move as well, so Google may give us one extra slot. So we
-need to ensure that all rank 7 projects are correctly ordered, not just the
+need to ensure that all rank-7 projects are correctly ordered, not just the
 best.
 
 <a name="MenteeRankingProcess-Theprocessofbreakingclusters"></a>
 ## The process of breaking clusters
 
-Admins work through all applications adding a +8 to all those ranked above
+Admins work through all applications, adding a +8 to all those ranked above
 the cut off score. This has the effect of increasing the "space" we have to
-work in re-ranking the clustered projects.
+work with in re-ranking the clustered projects.
 
-Admins then work through all the clustered applications adding scores as
+Admins then work through all the clustered applications, adding scores as
 defined above (with a comment justifying the ranking).
 
-If there is still a cluster of projects around the cut-off point then the
+If there is still a cluster of projects around the cut-off point, the
 lead admin looks at the mentors and projects involved. If a project/mentor
-which already has a higher scored application, the lead admin reduces the
-score for this one (i.e. try and spread the love)
+already has a higher scored application, the lead admin reduces the
+score for this one (i.e. to try to spread the love).
 
 It's not practical to ask the community to comment at this point as we are
-on a tight deadline. We ask that the community trusts the assigned admins.
+on a tight deadline. We ask that the community trust the assigned admins.
 
 <a name="MenteeRankingProcess-Resolveconflicts"></a>
 # Resolve conflicts
 
 Inevitably there will be one or two students who have been accepted in
-multiple organizations. This is resolved during an IRC meeting with Google
-admins during the final hours of ranking. In these cases the admins will
-attempt to contact mentors and students, but we sometimes have to make a
+multiple organizations. We resolve these conflicts during an IRC meeting with Google
+admins during the final hours of ranking. In these cases the admins
+attempt to contact mentors and students; but we sometimes have to make a
 judgment call on how to best resolve such conflicts, as things happen quite
 fast during this meeting.


Mime
View raw message