diff --git a/soc/2022/academics.html b/soc/2022/academics.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a5932f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/soc/2022/academics.html @@ -0,0 +1,220 @@ + + + + + Assessment | GNU social Summer of Code 2022 + + + + + + + +
+

Grading System employed

+

Effective Grading

+

Either pass or fail.

+

Qualitative Grading

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
GradeDefinition
31337Outstanding
1337Very Good
42Competent
0Failed
+

Method

+

Graded every month, the ceiled average is the final.

+

No Quantitative Grading system will be used.

+

The contributions will be evaluated according to the following directives:

+
+

Autonomy with which the work was done

+
+ +
+

Objectives satisfaction

+
+ +
+

Intrinsic difficulty level of their work

+
+ +

Grade formula per month

+
+                                Autonomy level
+Satisfaction of objectives |    Low     Competent       Very Good       Outstanding
+                -----------+-------------------------------------------------------
+                Low        |    0       0               0               0
+                Competent  |    42      42              42              1337
+                Very Good  |    42      1337            1337            31337
+                Outstanding|    42      1337            1337            31337
+
+                        Grade from matrix above
+Difficulty level   |    0       42              1337    31337
+        -----------+-----------------------------------------
+        Low        |    0       0               42      1337
+        Competent  |    0       42              1337    1337
+        Very Good  |    0      1337             1337    1337
+        Outstanding|    0      1337             1337    31337
+
+
+

Modules

+

N.B.: The following are the minimum averages in GNU social's Summer of Code, we will come up with a custom + "transcript" for any interested student.

+

Web Technologies

+

Amount of time allocated to each module unit

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
DesignationTime (hours)
Autonomous study80
Mentorship20
Project work46
Total146
+

Assessment Components

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
DesignationWeight (%)
Proposal80
Proof of Competence20
+

Proposed Credits

+

1 Carnegie Unit
+ 5 ECTS

+

Proposal Rating Guidelines

+

+

Internship | Training

+

Amount of time allocated to each module unit

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
DesignationTime (hours)
Internship276.5
Autonomous Study93.5
Final Report24
Mentorship44
Total438
+

Assessment Components

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
DesignationWeight (%)
Practical or project work100
+

Proposed Credits

+

4 Carnegie Unit
+ 18 Austria, Italy, and Spain ECTS
+ 16 Finland, The Netherlands, Portugal, and Russia ECTS
+ 15 Germany, Belgium, Romania, and Hungary ECTS

+
+ + diff --git a/soc/2022/index.html b/soc/2022/index.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..afce94f --- /dev/null +++ b/soc/2022/index.html @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ + + + + + + + GNU social — Summer of Code 2022 Ideas + + + + + + + +
+
+ + GNU social + gnu + social + +
+
+ +
+
+
+
+ +

Summer of Code 2022

+ +
+

About the programme

+

Check the programme page to learn more about the programme and on how to apply.

+

GNU social is a social communication software used in federated social networks. It is widely supported and has a large userbase.

+

If you would like to know how is it like to be a GSoC student at GNU social, read this blog post!

+
+
+

Summer Stipend

+

We have applied as an organisation to Google Summer of Code 2022, we are still waiting for the result. In 2020 we've had a successful student supported by The Freaks Club, you can reach thndrbvr and try your luck, or look for another sponsor.

+
+
+

Ideas

+

Below is a list of ideas you can work on this Summer at GNU social. You should pick one (or mix a couple) of them and talk on IRC about it. The community will help you understanding what has to be done so you can put a good proposal together.

+
    +
  • Split Form (logic and template)
    • +
  • XMPP Plugin
    • +
  • Integrate GS cache with symfony
    • +
  • Add (verb) tags to Notes
    • +
  • Avatar cropper without JS
    • +
  • More unit tests
    • +
  • Conversations reconstructor
    • +
  • Mascot plugin
    • +
  • LinkRedirectFollowPlugin
    • +
  • JS Extras Plugin
    • +
  • URL Shortening Plugin
    • +
  • SMS Plugin
    • +
  • Rotate Background colours PS3 plugin
    • +
+
+
+ +
+ + + diff --git a/soc/2022/proposal_rating_guidelines.txt b/soc/2022/proposal_rating_guidelines.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ea0a0f4 --- /dev/null +++ b/soc/2022/proposal_rating_guidelines.txt @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +# Proposal Rating Guidelines +## Scores +- 31337: Outstanding. Ex.: Went above and beyond (user stories split into small tasks, small tasks estimated, + defined MVP, planned any additional work, defined time off or limited time, well defined in case of emergency + (NOT "I will complete tasks earlier so I will have more time")) +- 1337: Very Good. Ex.: Included more than requirements (added mocks, diagrams, etc). +- 42: Competent. Ex.: Completed the minimum requirements (proposal's required questions). +- 0: Failed. Ex.: Either Below Average or Poor. Ex: Missed a few requirements (missed 1 or 2 required questions) or Didn't complete + requirements (incomplete, didn't follow template, etc). + +## Key Aspects +- Idea - Does the idea solve real problems? Was the audience defined? Is it realistic, does it bring potential security + issues? As a potential user, would you use the proposed? Can problems be easier solved by existing technologies? +- Understood Project? - Did the student research other projects doing similar things? Did the student show the full + scope of the project (backend, frontend, defined APIs, database, structure models, ML models, mockups, user journey, + user stories, etc.)? +- Project Planning - Did the student understand the whole complexity of the project, show smaller tasks and estimated? + Does the student have a version when things go wrong, as planned, and better than expected? Did the student balance + whole parts of the project (frontend and backend developing simultaneously) to have a better chance to achieve working + functionality? +- Engagement - Engaged on IRC, engaged on NotABug, listened to proposal feedback and updated their proposal, + helped others, closed issues, etc. + +## Criteria +Once proposals have been finalised, student proposals will be graded based on the following criteria: + +### Project +- Does it solve the problem we need solving? Does applicant clearly identify the problem? +- Does it offer a sensible solution? +- Does it offer supporting evidence for technologies chosen, e.g. bootstrap. Sometimes a compare/contrast of different + technologies considered can be helpful. +- Nice bonus features in addition to the main project = good, ONLY unrelated 'bonus' features = bad. + +### Plan +- Does the proposal have a realistic timeline? +- Are deliverables correct and timely? +- Does the student have enough time in the week to carry their plan? +- Bonus for "what if things go wrong planning", e.g. bonus features towards the end of the plan that can be removed + if/when the bugs strike. + +### Team working skills +- Can the student carry out tasks on their own over a three month period? +- Clear evidence of communication skills + - Lower points for gross over-communication ("what should I name this variable?"), better if they quietly and + competently get the job done but interact at appropriate times, e.g. GNU social bugs, sensible progress reports. +- Is the student capable of following existing guidelines and instructions where appropriate? + +## Extras + +### Experience +The experience criterion isn't specifically part of the grading rubric, but it's important for us to see some of the +following in the application: + +- Does the student have reasonable evidence they've competently done something relevant to this before? e.g.: one or more of + - a {NotABug, CodeBerg, GitGud, GitLab, GitHub,...} profile, + - merge requests on GNU social's repo, + - published software, + - code from a higher education institution assignment? +- Note: we don't require MRs to GNU social's repository. It's handy as a source of evidence, but any of the others + should do just fine. +- Absolutely no work available - not even a published app, some work experience, or code from a class assignment, is a + red flag. + +### How the ranking process works +All students with a finalised proposal will have their proposals reviewed by one or more mentors in the organisation, +and ranked out of 4 based on the criteria above. This score will also be averaged to provide a mean result. These +scores are not the final acceptance criteria - so a 1337 won't automatically win over an 42 - but they do help provide +general guidelines for the mentors who are choosing from a large body of qualified students. + +### Accepted students +Students will be notified of their acceptance by Google when all accepted students are announced, and will _not_ be +notified of their internal grades. Please note that we usually have more highly qualified applicants than slots +available for the organisation, so sometimes proposals that are genuinely very good have to be rejected. We genuinely +wish we could take you all! + +Students who successfully finish the summer of code and are interested in a "GNU social Summer of Code transcript" may +request one and that will come with a score and include an adapted proposal assessing. + + +--- +These guidelines were adapted from [InterMine](http://intermine.org/internships/guidance/grading-criteria-2019/) and AnitaB. diff --git a/soc/current/index.php b/soc/current/index.php index ed5ee4b..aa7f2a0 100644 --- a/soc/current/index.php +++ b/soc/current/index.php @@ -1 +1 @@ -