Fix Academics broken link
This commit is contained in:
parent
3997afe4ff
commit
cf1e0e9328
GPG Key ID:
18D2D35001FBFAB0
@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
|
||||
<html lang="en">
|
||||
<head>
|
||||
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
|
||||
<title>Assessment | GNU social SoC</title>
|
||||
<title>Assessment | GNU social Summer of Code 2020</title>
|
||||
<link rel="icon" href="../../favicon.png">
|
||||
<meta charset="utf-8">
|
||||
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
|
||||
@ -14,13 +14,13 @@
|
||||
<label for="show-menu" id="menu-button">Menu</label>
|
||||
<input id="show-menu" role="button" type="checkbox">
|
||||
<ul id="menu">
|
||||
<li><a href="./"><strong>← GS GSoC</strong></a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="./"><strong>← GS SoC 2020</strong></a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="#Grading_System_employed_0">Grading</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="#Web_Technologies_69">Proposal</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="#Internship__Training_91">Summer</a></li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
</nav>
|
||||
<h1>GNU social Summer of Code</h1>
|
||||
<h1>GNU social Summer of Code 2020</h1>
|
||||
<p>Organized by <strong><a href="https://www.diogo.site/">Diogo Cordeiro</a></strong></p>
|
||||
<p>Mentors: <a href="https://www.diogo.site/">Diogo Cordeiro</a>, <a href="https://loadaverage.org/XRevan86">Alexei Sorokin</a>, <a href="https://dansup.com">Daniel Supernault</a>, <a href="https://www.hackerposse.com/~rozzin/">Joshua Judson Rosen</a> and <a href="https://github.com/phablulo">Phablulo Joel</a></p>
|
||||
</header>
|
||||
@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
|
||||
<li><a href="#about">How was it?</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="ideas.php">Ideas of 2020</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="announcements.php">Programme 2020</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="academics.html">Academics</a></li>
|
||||
<li id="menu-title">Tech Reports</li>
|
||||
<li><a href="#v3_frontend">V3 Frontend</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="#v3_backend">V3 Backend</a></li>
|
||||
|
||||
220
soc/2021/academics.html
Normal file
220
soc/2021/academics.html
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,220 @@
|
||||
<!DOCTYPE html>
|
||||
<html lang="en">
|
||||
<head>
|
||||
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
|
||||
<title>Assessment | GNU social Summer of Code 2021</title>
|
||||
<link rel="icon" href="../../favicon.png">
|
||||
<meta charset="utf-8">
|
||||
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
|
||||
<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://hackersatporto.com/assets/css/main.css">
|
||||
</head>
|
||||
<body>
|
||||
<header id="header">
|
||||
<nav id="side-menu">
|
||||
<label for="show-menu" id="menu-button">Menu</label>
|
||||
<input id="show-menu" role="button" type="checkbox">
|
||||
<ul id="menu">
|
||||
<li><a href="./"><strong>← GS SoC 2021</strong></a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="#Grading_System_employed_0">Grading</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="#Web_Technologies_69">Proposal</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="#Internship__Training_91">Summer</a></li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
</nav>
|
||||
<h1>GNU social Summer of Code 2021</h1>
|
||||
</header>
|
||||
<article id="about">
|
||||
<h1 class="code-line" data-line-start=0 data-line-end=1 ><a id="Grading_System_employed_0"></a>Grading System employed</h1>
|
||||
<h2 class="code-line" data-line-start=2 data-line-end=3 ><a id="Effective_Grading_2"></a>Effective Grading</h2>
|
||||
<p class="has-line-data" data-line-start="3" data-line-end="4">Either <em>pass</em> or <em>fail</em>.</p>
|
||||
<h2 class="code-line" data-line-start=5 data-line-end=6 ><a id="Qualitative_Grading_5"></a>Qualitative Grading</h2>
|
||||
<table class="table table-striped table-bordered">
|
||||
<thead>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<th>Grade</th>
|
||||
<th>Definition</th>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
</thead>
|
||||
<tbody>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<td>31337</td>
|
||||
<td>Outstanding</td>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<td>1337</td>
|
||||
<td>Very Good</td>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<td>42</td>
|
||||
<td>Competent</td>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<td>0</td>
|
||||
<td>Failed</td>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
</tbody>
|
||||
</table>
|
||||
<h2 class="code-line" data-line-start=13 data-line-end=14 ><a id="Method_13"></a>Method</h2>
|
||||
<p class="has-line-data" data-line-start="14" data-line-end="15">Graded every month, the ceiled average is the final.</p>
|
||||
<p class="has-line-data" data-line-start="16" data-line-end="17">No Quantitative Grading system will be used.</p>
|
||||
<p class="has-line-data" data-line-start="18" data-line-end="19">The contributions will be evaluated according to the following directives:</p>
|
||||
<blockquote>
|
||||
<p class="has-line-data" data-line-start="20" data-line-end="21">Autonomy with which the work was done</p>
|
||||
</blockquote>
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="21" data-line-end="22">Low (was unable to progress autonomously);</li>
|
||||
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="22" data-line-end="24">Competent (some autonomy but with blocking situations that required the<br>
|
||||
intervention of the mentor);</li>
|
||||
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="24" data-line-end="26">Very Good (very good ability to solve problems independently in useful time<br>
|
||||
with the mentor mostly focused on defining the next steps of the work);</li>
|
||||
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="26" data-line-end="28">Outstanding (is sometimes able to suggest surprising and valid alternatives to what was originally planned by the mentor).</li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
<blockquote>
|
||||
<p class="has-line-data" data-line-start="28" data-line-end="29">Objectives satisfaction</p>
|
||||
</blockquote>
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="29" data-line-end="30">Low (haven't reached to the minimum objectives admissible for the proposed work);</li>
|
||||
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="30" data-line-end="31">Competent (the objectives were reached though not entirely);</li>
|
||||
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="31" data-line-end="32">Very Good (reached up fully);</li>
|
||||
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="32" data-line-end="34">Outstanding (exceeded up the objectives set).</li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
<blockquote>
|
||||
<p class="has-line-data" data-line-start="34" data-line-end="35">Intrinsic difficulty level of their work</p>
|
||||
</blockquote>
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="35" data-line-end="37">Low (relatively easy work, both from a scientific or technical point of view,<br>
|
||||
based on widespread knowledge);</li>
|
||||
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="37" data-line-end="39">Competent (work with some high complexity of details requiring more advanced<br>
|
||||
knowledge/expertise, either technical or scientific);</li>
|
||||
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="39" data-line-end="41">Very Good (relatively complex work, requiring a substantial knowledge and<br>
|
||||
technical skills, or resulting in some innovative contribution);</li>
|
||||
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="41" data-line-end="43">Outstanding (InSaNe).</li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
<h3 class="code-line" data-line-start=46 data-line-end=47 ><a id="Grade_formula_per_month_46"></a>Grade formula per month</h3>
|
||||
<pre>
|
||||
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
|
||||
</pre>
|
||||
<hr>
|
||||
<h1 class="code-line" data-line-start=67 data-line-end=68 ><a id="Modules_67"></a>Modules</h1>
|
||||
<p>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.</p>
|
||||
<h2 class="code-line" data-line-start=69 data-line-end=70 ><a id="Web_Technologies_69"></a>Web Technologies</h2>
|
||||
<h3 class="code-line" data-line-start=71 data-line-end=72 ><a id="Amount_of_time_allocated_to_each_module_unit_71"></a>Amount of time allocated to each module unit</h3>
|
||||
<table class="table table-striped table-bordered">
|
||||
<thead>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<th>Designation</th>
|
||||
<th>Time (hours)</th>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
</thead>
|
||||
<tbody>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<td>Autonomous study</td>
|
||||
<td>80</td>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<td>Mentorship</td>
|
||||
<td>20</td>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<td>Project work</td>
|
||||
<td>46</td>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<td>Total</td>
|
||||
<td>146</td>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
</tbody>
|
||||
</table>
|
||||
<h3 class="code-line" data-line-start=79 data-line-end=80 ><a id="Assessment_Components_79"></a>Assessment Components</h3>
|
||||
<table class="table table-striped table-bordered">
|
||||
<thead>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<th>Designation</th>
|
||||
<th>Weight (%)</th>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
</thead>
|
||||
<tbody>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<td>Proposal</td>
|
||||
<td>80</td>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<td>Proof of Competence</td>
|
||||
<td>20</td>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
</tbody>
|
||||
</table>
|
||||
<h3 class="code-line" data-line-start=85 data-line-end=86 ><a id="Proposed_Credits_85"></a>Proposed Credits</h3>
|
||||
<p class="has-line-data" data-line-start="86" data-line-end="88">1 Carnegie Unit<br>
|
||||
5 ECTS</p>
|
||||
<p><strong><a href="proposal_rating_guidelines.txt">Proposal Rating Guidelines</a></strong><p>
|
||||
<hr>
|
||||
<h2 class="code-line" data-line-start=91 data-line-end=92 ><a id="Internship__Training_91"></a>Internship | Training</h2>
|
||||
<h3 class="code-line" data-line-start=93 data-line-end=94 ><a id="Amount_of_time_allocated_to_each_module_unit_93"></a>Amount of time allocated to each module unit</h3>
|
||||
<table class="table table-striped table-bordered">
|
||||
<thead>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<th>Designation</th>
|
||||
<th>Time (hours)</th>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
</thead>
|
||||
<tbody>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<td>Internship</td>
|
||||
<td>276.5</td>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<td>Autonomous Study</td>
|
||||
<td>93.5</td>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<td>Final Report</td>
|
||||
<td>24</td>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<td>Mentorship</td>
|
||||
<td>44</td>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<td>Total</td>
|
||||
<td>438</td>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
</tbody>
|
||||
</table>
|
||||
<h3 class="code-line" data-line-start=102 data-line-end=103 ><a id="Assessment_Components_102"></a>Assessment Components</h3>
|
||||
<table class="table table-striped table-bordered">
|
||||
<thead>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<th>Designation</th>
|
||||
<th>Weight (%)</th>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
</thead>
|
||||
<tbody>
|
||||
<tr>
|
||||
<td>Practical or project work</td>
|
||||
<td>100</td>
|
||||
</tr>
|
||||
</tbody>
|
||||
</table>
|
||||
<h3 class="code-line" data-line-start=107 data-line-end=108 ><a id="Proposed_Credits_107"></a>Proposed Credits</h3>
|
||||
<p class="has-line-data" data-line-start="108" data-line-end="112">4 Carnegie Unit<br>
|
||||
18 Austria, Italy, and Spain ECTS<br>
|
||||
16 Finland, The Netherlands, Portugal, and Russia ECTS<br>
|
||||
15 Germany, Belgium, Romania, and Hungary ECTS</p>
|
||||
</article>
|
||||
</body>
|
||||
</html>
|
||||
@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
|
||||
<li class="pure-menu-item"><a href="#ideas" class="pure-menu-link">Ideas</a></li>
|
||||
<li class="pure-menu-item"><a href="/soc/#apply" class="pure-menu-link">Apply</a></li>
|
||||
<li class="pure-menu-item"><a href="../study_resources.html" class="pure-menu-link">Study Resources</a></li>
|
||||
<li class="pure-menu-item"><a href="academics.html" class="pure-menu-link">Academics</a></li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</header>
|
||||
|
||||
81
soc/2021/proposal_rating_guidelines.txt
Normal file
81
soc/2021/proposal_rating_guidelines.txt
Normal file
@ -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.
|
||||
@ -47,7 +47,7 @@
|
||||
<p>We suggest you to do a four-day work week with 6h of work/day + 3h to document, review/test and report the progress you've done (you usually won't need that much for this and we won't complain as long as you're doing well/being highly productive). As breaks are important, we recommend a 1h lunch break, 15min break after 4h of continuous work and a further 15mins break after 6h of work. These breaks won't be considered as part of your work time.</p>
|
||||
<p>Note that 6h*4 = 24h, if you only do the 24h/week, you'll have to prove your worth. Otherwise, we might require that you either do a 5-day week or that you scale it up to 7.5h in your 4-day week.</p>
|
||||
<p>In general, you will always have to work at least 120h/month, ideally 146h/month (or the productively equivalent). We do not accept that you transfer expected work time from a month to another. Nonetheless, an under-performing week will make us request more hours from you in the week after (up to the limit of 40h).</p>
|
||||
<p>Click <a href="academics.html">here</a> to better understand how we distribute the load. Also note that every summer of code ends with a final tech report, <a href="http://www.gnusocial.rocks/soc/2020/tech_report/v3_fe/technical_report.pdf">here's an example</a> of a frontend rework.</p>
|
||||
<p>Click <a href="2021/academics.html">here</a> to better understand how we distribute the load. Also note that every summer of code ends with a final tech report, <a href="http://www.gnusocial.rocks/soc/2020/tech_report/v3_fe/technical_report.pdf">here's an example</a> of a frontend rework.</p>
|
||||
</article>
|
||||
|
||||
<article id="apply">
|
||||
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user