I'm going to reply to the thread as a whole here - without getting too much in the details.
I think the GSOC is a good program and could be helpful to boost. I don't think any student should get to participate more than once. If that's to harsh, one could modify it to be "more than once on the same project" I understand that it might take more time than one summer to finish a project. In this case the student should just accept this and accept the responsibility on his own or pick a less ambitious project. The idea that a project might take more than a summer and hence should be supported again is abhorrent to me. It converts the process into more of a grand/entitlement mentality which fosters, complacency and stasis rather then disruption. I don't think a project has to end as an accepted boost library to be a success. In fact, I doubt there are more than a very few students who are actually capable of accomplishing this. I the project accomplishes it's original (stated) aims - it's a success. students should be discouraged from taking on large ambitious projects like new meta programming library. (LOL - I know) students should be encouraged to take on smaller, less sexy but more useful projects - How about new documentation for the boost units library, Plan for Boost usage of CMake. I would mentor these. students who actually complete their projects as anticipated should be recognized explicitly - free ride to C++Now or CPPcon and opportunity to get speaker slot. I don't really know much about the program, but it seems to me that the Google people are in sync with my views on the subject. Robert Ramey > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Boost Steering Committee" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
