On 2019-06-27 13:22, Naomi S wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 18:52, Ross Gardler > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have seen NO discussion on the topic of who the mentors are and minimal >> discussion on how we evaluate proposals. >> > > I will note that this very thread ("[DISCUSS] Outreachy framework > proposal") was supposed to be the start of that conversation.
And I would like to continue that topic, but until the noise abates and the S/N is restored here, I refuse to do so. I simply haven't the energy to wade through the piles of vitriol. I'll leave a few points here, and hopefully someone can pick up on them: * We need a double blind evaluation system that masks project name, applicant name, specific details, etc. * We need a way to ensure that mentors actually are capable of committing the time necessary for this programme, to check in with the admins on regular intervals to ensure this is happening, and to blacklist them from future involvement if they are unable to meet those expectations and they do not have an acceptable excuse, since real money will have been wasted. (Doctor's note, death in the family, etc.) * We need a double-check that the projects involved agree to follow not just the ASF CoC, but the Outreachy CoC, and any other imposed requirements * We need a ruler by which we can measure the quality of the project in terms of its suitability for an intern - what will the intern *gain* by working on the project? Or is it just self-interest of the requesting PMC/org? Quantified and qualified, preferably. * We need to review the tagged areas Outreachy provides to ensure that the applications we vet cover a broad range of opportunities within our Foundation, not 100% documentation or internal-facing tools. * We should find a volunteer to reach out to our compatriots within Fedora and Debian to see how they coordinate and vet their similar opportunity programs. -Joan
