On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Eugene Teo eteo@redhat.com wrote:
Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
With the new process for getting (and staying) on Planet Fedora in place, how does it affect GSoC-ers ?
Do we have their blogs on the Planet ? And, do they get FedoraPeople.org accounts ?
Is it possible to waive the requirement that my mentee has to be sponsored to a group other than the CLA group? I remember there were discussion about syndicating our mentees blogs to Planet Fedora?
I'm going to forward this to seth vidal, who is in charge of such things, and the Fedora Infrastructure team.
Personally I think that the students/mentees will need access to the wiki at some point or another. That can definitely count as a second group. I've made it a point for my mentee to have a biography on the wiki, and with the new wiki, it has it's own group in FAS.
To actually put a blog on Planet Fedora, the mentees need to follow the instructions seth posted a few days ago.
They can be found here http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/changes-at-planet-fedora/
-Yaakov
On Sun, 25 May 2008, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Eugene Teo eteo@redhat.com wrote:
Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
With the new process for getting (and staying) on Planet Fedora in place, how does it affect GSoC-ers ?
Do we have their blogs on the Planet ? And, do they get FedoraPeople.org accounts ?
Is it possible to waive the requirement that my mentee has to be sponsored to a group other than the CLA group? I remember there were discussion about syndicating our mentees blogs to Planet Fedora?
I'm going to forward this to seth vidal, who is in charge of such things, and the Fedora Infrastructure team.
Personally I think that the students/mentees will need access to the wiki at some point or another. That can definitely count as a second group. I've made it a point for my mentee to have a biography on the wiki, and with the new wiki, it has it's own group in FAS.
To actually put a blog on Planet Fedora, the mentees need to follow the instructions seth posted a few days ago.
They can be found here http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/changes-at-planet-fedora/
My personal feeling is that individuals that want to be on planet really should be a fedora contributor. The barriers are pretty low (and going down even more all the time) to contribute.
The question then is, why would someone want to be on Fedora planet but not be a fedora contributor?
-Mike
On Sat, 24 May 2008, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2008, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Eugene Teo eteo@redhat.com wrote:
Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
With the new process for getting (and staying) on Planet Fedora in place, how does it affect GSoC-ers ?
Do we have their blogs on the Planet ? And, do they get FedoraPeople.org accounts ?
Is it possible to waive the requirement that my mentee has to be sponsored to a group other than the CLA group? I remember there were discussion about syndicating our mentees blogs to Planet Fedora?
I'm going to forward this to seth vidal, who is in charge of such things, and the Fedora Infrastructure team.
Personally I think that the students/mentees will need access to the wiki at some point or another. That can definitely count as a second group. I've made it a point for my mentee to have a biography on the wiki, and with the new wiki, it has it's own group in FAS.
To actually put a blog on Planet Fedora, the mentees need to follow the instructions seth posted a few days ago.
They can be found here http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/changes-at-planet-fedora/
My personal feeling is that individuals that want to be on planet really should be a fedora contributor. The barriers are pretty low (and going down even more all the time) to contribute.
The question then is, why would someone want to be on Fedora planet but not be a fedora contributor?
Alternatively, perhaps we should just have an GSoC group? These guys are technically contributors...
-Mike
On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 23:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
Alternatively, perhaps we should just have an GSoC group? These guys are technically contributors...
I didn't realize this discussion was cross-posted, I already sent my agreement to this idea to the other thread. Having a group 'gsoc_2008' or 'summercoders_2008' could help more than just this problem. As was said elsewhere, these _are_ Fedora contributors, but they don't all fit directly in to an existing group, or their contributions are being filtered outside of the group.
- Karsten
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 23:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
Alternatively, perhaps we should just have an GSoC group? These guys are technically contributors...
I didn't realize this discussion was cross-posted, I already sent my agreement to this idea to the other thread. Having a group 'gsoc_2008' or 'summercoders_2008' could help more than just this problem. As was said elsewhere, these _are_ Fedora contributors, but they don't all fit directly in to an existing group, or their contributions are being filtered outside of the group.
Why not just gsoc? I don't understand what we gain from the _2008?
-Mike
On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 10:28 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 23:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
Alternatively, perhaps we should just have an GSoC group? These guys are technically contributors...
I didn't realize this discussion was cross-posted, I already sent my agreement to this idea to the other thread. Having a group 'gsoc_2008' or 'summercoders_2008' could help more than just this problem. As was said elsewhere, these _are_ Fedora contributors, but they don't all fit directly in to an existing group, or their contributions are being filtered outside of the group.
Why not just gsoc? I don't understand what we gain from the _2008?
Gain, not sure. Lose, the ability to differentiate between groups.
A main purpose of GSoC is to get more coders into more projects.
For this reason, all students who stick around Fedora should be in other groups. Their continued presence in "last year's group" should *not* be construed as an ongoing contributor effort. By the end of this Summer, the group is essentially defunct. If that is the only group someone is in, and six months later ... it's still the only group, then they aren't contributing to any coding projects. If they move on to Ambassadors, then they are in another group, are contributing, etc.
Does that make sense?
For a similar reason, I recommend a generic name. Maybe all interns and summer coders could be in the group. That way we can include the Finnish Summer Code effort into this, and any RHT interns that aren't part of another group (yet.)
- Karsten
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 10:28 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 23:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
Alternatively, perhaps we should just have an GSoC group? These guys are technically contributors...
I didn't realize this discussion was cross-posted, I already sent my agreement to this idea to the other thread. Having a group 'gsoc_2008' or 'summercoders_2008' could help more than just this problem. As was said elsewhere, these _are_ Fedora contributors, but they don't all fit directly in to an existing group, or their contributions are being filtered outside of the group.
Why not just gsoc? I don't understand what we gain from the _2008?
Gain, not sure. Lose, the ability to differentiate between groups.
A main purpose of GSoC is to get more coders into more projects.
For this reason, all students who stick around Fedora should be in other groups. Their continued presence in "last year's group" should *not* be construed as an ongoing contributor effort. By the end of this Summer, the group is essentially defunct. If that is the only group someone is in, and six months later ... it's still the only group, then they aren't contributing to any coding projects. If they move on to Ambassadors, then they are in another group, are contributing, etc.
Does that make sense?
For a similar reason, I recommend a generic name. Maybe all interns and summer coders could be in the group. That way we can include the Finnish Summer Code effort into this, and any RHT interns that aren't part of another group (yet.)
In 2009, what use will the gsoc_2008 group be? I had assumed that at the end of summery 2008, the gsoc group would be cleared out except for admins and sponsors. Similar to what would happen with ols.
-Mike
On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 12:46 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 10:28 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 23:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
Alternatively, perhaps we should just have an GSoC group? These guys are technically contributors...
I didn't realize this discussion was cross-posted, I already sent my agreement to this idea to the other thread. Having a group 'gsoc_2008' or 'summercoders_2008' could help more than just this problem. As was said elsewhere, these _are_ Fedora contributors, but they don't all fit directly in to an existing group, or their contributions are being filtered outside of the group.
Why not just gsoc? I don't understand what we gain from the _2008?
Gain, not sure. Lose, the ability to differentiate between groups.
A main purpose of GSoC is to get more coders into more projects.
For this reason, all students who stick around Fedora should be in other groups. Their continued presence in "last year's group" should *not* be construed as an ongoing contributor effort. By the end of this Summer, the group is essentially defunct. If that is the only group someone is in, and six months later ... it's still the only group, then they aren't contributing to any coding projects. If they move on to Ambassadors, then they are in another group, are contributing, etc.
Does that make sense?
For a similar reason, I recommend a generic name. Maybe all interns and summer coders could be in the group. That way we can include the Finnish Summer Code effort into this, and any RHT interns that aren't part of another group (yet.)
In 2009, what use will the gsoc_2008 group be? I had assumed that at the end of summery 2008, the gsoc group would be cleared out except for admins and sponsors. Similar to what would happen with ols.
I think what Karsten is saying (maybe) is that remembering to clear our the group is something ELSE we have to do. with a group with a year in the name we can just delete the group w/o having to check who is in it, or not.
-sv
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 01:54:08PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 12:46 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 10:28 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 23:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
Alternatively, perhaps we should just have an GSoC group? These guys are technically contributors...
I didn't realize this discussion was cross-posted, I already sent my agreement to this idea to the other thread. Having a group 'gsoc_2008' or 'summercoders_2008' could help more than just this problem. As was said elsewhere, these _are_ Fedora contributors, but they don't all fit directly in to an existing group, or their contributions are being filtered outside of the group.
Why not just gsoc? I don't understand what we gain from the _2008?
Gain, not sure. Lose, the ability to differentiate between groups.
A main purpose of GSoC is to get more coders into more projects.
For this reason, all students who stick around Fedora should be in other groups. Their continued presence in "last year's group" should *not* be construed as an ongoing contributor effort. By the end of this Summer, the group is essentially defunct. If that is the only group someone is in, and six months later ... it's still the only group, then they aren't contributing to any coding projects. If they move on to Ambassadors, then they are in another group, are contributing, etc.
Does that make sense?
For a similar reason, I recommend a generic name. Maybe all interns and summer coders could be in the group. That way we can include the Finnish Summer Code effort into this, and any RHT interns that aren't part of another group (yet.)
In 2009, what use will the gsoc_2008 group be? I had assumed that at the end of summery 2008, the gsoc group would be cleared out except for admins and sponsors. Similar to what would happen with ols.
I think what Karsten is saying (maybe) is that remembering to clear our the group is something ELSE we have to do. with a group with a year in the name we can just delete the group w/o having to check who is in it, or not.
Or, really, shouldn't the student be included in some existing group now, and not create a new gsoc group at all? If the point is to get them involved in Fedora and to keep contributing after the summer is over, then being a part of a group that's directly related to the work they're doing, not how they're being mentored via GSOC, makes sense to me.
Yes, we can create groups if they're beneficial, but being in the sysadmin-web group, or the gittransifex group, would seem to make more sense.
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 01:54:08PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 12:46 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 10:28 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 23:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Alternatively, perhaps we should just have an GSoC group? These guys > are > technically contributors...
I didn't realize this discussion was cross-posted, I already sent my agreement to this idea to the other thread. Having a group 'gsoc_2008' or 'summercoders_2008' could help more than just this problem. As was said elsewhere, these _are_ Fedora contributors, but they don't all fit directly in to an existing group, or their contributions are being filtered outside of the group.
Why not just gsoc? I don't understand what we gain from the _2008?
Gain, not sure. Lose, the ability to differentiate between groups.
A main purpose of GSoC is to get more coders into more projects.
For this reason, all students who stick around Fedora should be in other groups. Their continued presence in "last year's group" should *not* be construed as an ongoing contributor effort. By the end of this Summer, the group is essentially defunct. If that is the only group someone is in, and six months later ... it's still the only group, then they aren't contributing to any coding projects. If they move on to Ambassadors, then they are in another group, are contributing, etc.
Does that make sense?
For a similar reason, I recommend a generic name. Maybe all interns and summer coders could be in the group. That way we can include the Finnish Summer Code effort into this, and any RHT interns that aren't part of another group (yet.)
In 2009, what use will the gsoc_2008 group be? I had assumed that at the end of summery 2008, the gsoc group would be cleared out except for admins and sponsors. Similar to what would happen with ols.
I think what Karsten is saying (maybe) is that remembering to clear our the group is something ELSE we have to do. with a group with a year in the name we can just delete the group w/o having to check who is in it, or not.
Or, really, shouldn't the student be included in some existing group now, and not create a new gsoc group at all? If the point is to get them involved in Fedora and to keep contributing after the summer is over, then being a part of a group that's directly related to the work they're doing, not how they're being mentored via GSOC, makes sense to me.
Yes, we can create groups if they're beneficial, but being in the sysadmin-web group, or the gittransifex group, would seem to make more sense.
Some of these guys are just working on and committing code. And some of that code isn't hosted with us.
-Mike
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2008, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Eugene Teo eteo@redhat.com wrote:
Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
With the new process for getting (and staying) on Planet Fedora in place, how does it affect GSoC-ers ?
Do we have their blogs on the Planet ? And, do they get FedoraPeople.org accounts ?
Is it possible to waive the requirement that my mentee has to be sponsored to a group other than the CLA group? I remember there were discussion about syndicating our mentees blogs to Planet Fedora?
I'm going to forward this to seth vidal, who is in charge of such things, and the Fedora Infrastructure team.
Personally I think that the students/mentees will need access to the wiki at some point or another. That can definitely count as a second group. I've made it a point for my mentee to have a biography on the wiki, and with the new wiki, it has it's own group in FAS.
To actually put a blog on Planet Fedora, the mentees need to follow the instructions seth posted a few days ago.
They can be found here http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/changes-at-planet-fedora/
My personal feeling is that individuals that want to be on planet really should be a fedora contributor. The barriers are pretty low (and going down even more all the time) to contribute.
The question then is, why would someone want to be on Fedora planet but not be a fedora contributor?
These are our google summer of code students, more or less. In the case of Smolt, I want Pavel sending patches to me instead of just pushing them. The only reason is because of google requirements. That's why you probably haven't seen his application to be a member of hgsmolt.
Still, the wiki's a group, no?
-Yaakov
On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 23:22 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
They can be found here http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/changes-at-planet-fedora/
My personal feeling is that individuals that want to be on planet really should be a fedora contributor. The barriers are pretty low (and going down even more all the time) to contribute.
The question then is, why would someone want to be on Fedora planet but not be a fedora contributor?
+1
-sv
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Karsten Wade -
Matt Domsch -
Mike McGrath -
Seth Vidal -
Yaakov Nemoy