The recognition by PMC of a GSoC project mentor should help eliminate a problem I witnessed last year.
+1 Steven J. Hathaway XALAN > Now that I understood that no action by or within the PMC is required, > I'm perfectly fine with the new procedure. > > So a non-binding +1 from me. > > Cheers, > Tammo > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:35, Ulrich Stärk <[email protected]> wrote: >> Do we have a concensus here? If so we will prepare a mail to pmc@ >> explaining the process. >> >> Uli >> >> On 19.03.2012 10:08, Ross Gardler wrote: >>> On 19 March 2012 08:42, Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Nóirín Pluincéid <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> ...Mentors should have the backing of the PMC responsible for the >>>>> project >>>>> their student is working on - because we've promised that to Google, >>>>> and >>>>> because we need to know that if the mentor disappears, the PMC will >>>>> step in.... >>>> +1, IMO we just need the PMC to say "we are ok with this GSoC project >>>> happening with this mentor". >>>> >>>> Having the mentor CC their PMC list when they inform code-awards of >>>> their intention to mentor, and someone from the PMC ack that, is not >>>> much work and I think it's sufficient. >>> +1 >>> >>> The tiny bit of extra work for PMCs significantly reduces admin work >>> if we have an issue like last year (I not none of the people who >>> worked to resolve the issue last year are against this idea ;-) >>> >>> PMCs are supposed to provide oversight for their projects not anyone >>> else. >>> >>> Ross >>> >>> > > > > -- > Tammo van Lessen - http://www.taval.de > >
