{"thread":{"id":"49239","subject":"Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","startedAt":"2018-08-28T15:14:22Z","lastAt":"2018-09-08T15:40:56Z","messageCount":27,"participants":["Jeff King","Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason","Johannes Schindelin","Christian Couder","Оля Тележная"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"356701","messageId":"20180828151419.GA17467@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-28T15:14:19Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-28T15:14:22Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"The Outreachy application period is set to begin on September 10th for\ninterns participating in the December-March program. Do we want to\nparticipate?\n\nDetails on the program are here:\n\n  https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/\n\nIf we want to, then we need:\n\n  1. Volunteers to mentor. This is similar in scope to being a GSoC\n     mentor.\n\n  2. To get our landing page and list of projects in order (and also\n     micro-projects for applicants). This can probably build on the\n     previous round at:\n\n       https://git.github.io/Outreachy-15/\n\n     and on the project/microprojects lists for GSoC (which will need\n     some updating and culling).\n\n  3. To figure out funding (unlike GSoC, the intern stipend comes from\n     the projects). I can look into getting outside funds (which is what\n     we did last year). Worst case, we do have enough project money to\n     cover an intern. Last year[1] opinions were that this was a\n     reasonable use of project money, but of course new opinions are\n     welcome.\n\nIf the answer is \"yes, we should participate\", it will hopefully be\naccompanied with \"yes, I will mentor\", and \"yes, and I will start\ngetting the landing page ready.\" :)\n\n-Peff\n\n[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20170901223059.xsbcpqff45mnblnj@sigill.intra.peff.net/\n"},{"id":"356834","messageId":"8736uxe2pm.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"20180828151419.GA17467@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason","fromEmail":"avarab@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-08-29T13:12:37Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-29T13:12:42Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"avarab@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45301?v=4"},"body":"\nOn Tue, Aug 28 2018, Jeff King wrote:\n\n> The Outreachy application period is set to begin on September 10th for\n> interns participating in the December-March program. Do we want to\n> participate?\n>\n> Details on the program are here:\n>\n>   https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/\n>\n> If we want to, then we need:\n>\n>   1. Volunteers to mentor. This is similar in scope to being a GSoC\n>      mentor.\n>\n>   2. To get our landing page and list of projects in order (and also\n>      micro-projects for applicants). This can probably build on the\n>      previous round at:\n>\n>        https://git.github.io/Outreachy-15/\n>\n>      and on the project/microprojects lists for GSoC (which will need\n>      some updating and culling).\n>\n>   3. To figure out funding (unlike GSoC, the intern stipend comes from\n>      the projects). I can look into getting outside funds (which is what\n>      we did last year). Worst case, we do have enough project money to\n>      cover an intern. Last year[1] opinions were that this was a\n>      reasonable use of project money, but of course new opinions are\n>      welcome.\n>\n> If the answer is \"yes, we should participate\", it will hopefully be\n> accompanied with \"yes, I will mentor\", and \"yes, and I will start\n> getting the land#ing page ready.\" :)\n\nI just have a \"yes\" to the first one of those. Which tells you how much\nskin I have in the game (and how much you should(n't) listen to me) :)\n\nJust a question: It seems to me that #1 and #2 is not tied up to the\nOutreachy process. I agree that finding a qualified intern to work on\nGit would be a good use of project funds.\n\nWhat's not clear to me is if/how tied up this needs to be to a specific\nexternal program such as Outreachy. I.e. do we as a project need to go\nthrough that organization, or can that be just one of the ways in which\nwe send out a call for interns?\n\nWith GSoC we don't have a choice in the matter, since Google's paying\nthe bills and runs the show, but it sounds like in this case we at least\npartially do.\n\nOr maybe Outreachy is doing some heavy lifting with screening or has\npartial subsidies which would still make it prohibitive to e.g. send out\na general call of our own for candidates on the mailing list & in other\nvenues.\n"},{"id":"356930","messageId":"20180830031607.GB665@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"8736uxe2pm.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-30T03:16:08Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-30T03:16:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 03:12:37PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:\n\n> >   2. To get our landing page and list of projects in order (and also\n> >      micro-projects for applicants). This can probably build on the\n> >      previous round at:\n> >\n> >        https://git.github.io/Outreachy-15/\n> >\n> >      and on the project/microprojects lists for GSoC (which will need\n> >      some updating and culling).\n> [...]\n> I just have a \"yes\" to the first one of those. Which tells you how much\n> skin I have in the game (and how much you should(n't) listen to me) :)\n\nYes, if nobody steps up to do 2, then it won't happen. :)\n\nFor myself, I don't think I have time to commit to mentoring this round.\nAnd IMHO the people signing up to mentor should be the ones contributing\nto the project list (since they will ultimately be on the hook for\nworking on those projects with the intern).\n\n> Just a question: It seems to me that #1 and #2 is not tied up to the\n> Outreachy process. I agree that finding a qualified intern to work on\n> Git would be a good use of project funds.\n> \n> What's not clear to me is if/how tied up this needs to be to a specific\n> external program such as Outreachy. I.e. do we as a project need to go\n> through that organization, or can that be just one of the ways in which\n> we send out a call for interns?\n\nIt doesn't need to be. As far as I know, the main reasons (from the\nperspective of a project) to do it through Outreachy are:\n\n - being part of a larger program generates attention and gets the\n   interest of intern candidates (free advertising, if you will)\n\n - Outreachy handles payment, invoicing for external funds, and any\n   legal stuff\n\n - it's possibly easier to external funding if it's earmarked for a\n   program like Outreachy, since that program provides a framework with\n   particular goals, conditions, oversight, etc.\n\nI think there's some general value in having a group, too. Because there\nare many interns all participating at the same time, they can offer each\nother support or advice, show off their work to each other via blog\nposts, etc. And it may be easier for them to communicate about their\naccomplishments and status for future work, since it's part of an\nestablished program that can easily be explained.\n\nAs for reasons _not_ to do it, I don't think the requirements are particularly\nonerous. Mostly it's:\n\n  - it has to happen at a specific time, which might not be convenient\n    for mentors or interns (last year I found it hard to get focused\n    starting in December, with all of the holidays)\n\n  - it naturally limits the candidate pool to under-represented groups\n    (which is the whole point of the program, but if you don't\n    actually care about that, then it's just a complication)\n\nSo IMHO it's easily worth the trouble.\n\n> With GSoC we don't have a choice in the matter, since Google's paying\n> the bills and runs the show, but it sounds like in this case we at least\n> partially do.\n\nI think that the autonomy and level of responsibility for the\nmentors/project is about the same between GSoC and Outreachy. The main\ndifference is just the funding model (but again, I suspect we would not\nhave too much trouble securing external funding).\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"356965","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808301340280.71@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"20180830031607.GB665@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2018-08-30T11:46:00Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-30T11:46:12Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Peff,\n\nOn Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Jeff King wrote:\n\n>   - it naturally limits the candidate pool to under-represented groups\n>     (which is the whole point of the program, but if you don't\n>     actually care about that, then it's just a complication)\n> \n> So IMHO it's easily worth the trouble.\n\nI am willing to mentor, and the only reason that kept me from already\nstepping forward and trying to brush up the landing page is this concern:\ntraditionally, we (as in: the core Git contributors) have been less than\nsuccessful in attracting and retaining contributors from under-represented\ngroups. I don't think any regular reader of this mailing list can deny\nthat.\n\nAnd while I find it very important to reach out (there are just *so* many\nbenefits to having a more diverse team), I have to ask *why* we are so\nunsuccessful. As long as we do not even know the answer to that, is it\neven worth pursuing Outreachy?\n\nI mean, if we make serious mistakes here, without even realizing, that\ndirectly lead to being stuck in our old bubble, then we are prone to\nsimply repeat those mistakes over and over and over again. And that would\njust be a waste of our time, *and* a big de-motivator for the Outreachy\nstudents.\n\nWhat's your take on this?\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"356967","messageId":"87sh2wcak4.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"20180830031607.GB665@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason","fromEmail":"avarab@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-08-30T12:18:19Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-30T12:18:25Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"avarab@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45301?v=4"},"body":"\nOn Thu, Aug 30 2018, Jeff King wrote:\n\n> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 03:12:37PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:\n>\n>> >   2. To get our landing page and list of projects in order (and also\n>> >      micro-projects for applicants). This can probably build on the\n>> >      previous round at:\n>> >\n>> >        https://git.github.io/Outreachy-15/\n>> >\n>> >      and on the project/microprojects lists for GSoC (which will need\n>> >      some updating and culling).\n>> [...]\n>> I just have a \"yes\" to the first one of those. Which tells you how much\n>> skin I have in the game (and how much you should(n't) listen to me) :)\n>\n> Yes, if nobody steps up to do 2, then it won't happen. :)\n>\n> For myself, I don't think I have time to commit to mentoring this round.\n> And IMHO the people signing up to mentor should be the ones contributing\n> to the project list (since they will ultimately be on the hook for\n> working on those projects with the intern).\n>\n>> Just a question: It seems to me that #1 and #2 is not tied up to the\n>> Outreachy process. I agree that finding a qualified intern to work on\n>> Git would be a good use of project funds.\n>>\n>> What's not clear to me is if/how tied up this needs to be to a specific\n>> external program such as Outreachy. I.e. do we as a project need to go\n>> through that organization, or can that be just one of the ways in which\n>> we send out a call for interns?\n\nThanks!\n\n> It doesn't need to be. As far as I know, the main reasons (from the\n> perspective of a project) to do it through Outreachy are:\n>\n>  - being part of a larger program generates attention and gets the\n>    interest of intern candidates (free advertising, if you will)\n\nI was wondering if we couldn't do it through Outreachy *and* also do our\nown advertisements / possibly recruit candidates outside of the\nOutreachy pool. In that case we'd still get the attention/outreach\nbenefits, in addition to our own...\n\n>  - Outreachy handles payment, invoicing for external funds, and any\n>    legal stuff\n>\n>  - it's possibly easier to external funding if it's earmarked for a\n>    program like Outreachy, since that program provides a framework with\n>    particular goals, conditions, oversight, etc.\n\n... but not both of these at least if we selected any a non-Outreachy\ncandidates. Nice to get a good summary of the pros there.\n\n> I think there's some general value in having a group, too. Because\n> there are many interns all participating at the same time, they can\n> offer each other support or advice, show off their work to each other\n> via blog posts, etc.  And it may be easier for them to communicate\n> about their accomplishments and status for future work, since it's\n> part of an established program that can easily be explained.\n\nYup, but just as a clarifying point here wouldn't the participants also\nget all the same benefits of this in the case of Outreachy+OurOwnProgram\nif we ran OurOwnProgram concurrently to Outreachy?\n\nI.e. I was assuming that once candidates are \"handed off\" to a project\nthey're communicating within that project (possibly with other\ncandidates), and Outreachy is no longer very involved (except maybe for\nprogress reports / final report, but wouldn't we also do that for a\nOurOwnProgram?).\n\nI may have that completely wrong though, which is why I'm asking, which\nb.t.w. I'm doing mostly just to get an idea of how what Outreachy's role\nis in this exactly, not to strongly advocate for a OurOwnProgram.\n\n> As for reasons _not_ to do it, I don't think the requirements are particularly\n> onerous. Mostly it's:\n>\n>   - it has to happen at a specific time, which might not be convenient\n>     for mentors or interns (last year I found it hard to get focused\n>     starting in December, with all of the holidays)\n\nYup.\n\n>   - it naturally limits the candidate pool to under-represented groups\n>     (which is the whole point of the program, but if you don't\n>     actually care about that, then it's just a complication)\n\nI'm fine with doing selection discrimination of under-represented groups\nthrough such a program. Particularly if, as you mention, there's\nearmarked funding for it which otherwise might not be available, so it's\nnot zero-sum when it comes to a hypothetical alternative of casting a\nwider net of our own (and as you mention, that would be more work).\n\nI do think it's unfortunate that the selection criteria for the program\nprivileges U.S. citizens and U.S. residents above other people,\nparticularly since they're also accepting worldwide candidates (and\nwe've had at least one non-American participant that I know about), so\nit's not e.g. for U.S. administrative or tax reasons as one might expect\nif they only accepted Americans.\n\nI don't think that's some big deal, just something that puts the Git\nproject as an international cooperation (and one that solicits funds\nfrom donors worldwide) into a slightly odd position, so something we\nshould keep in mind going forward.\n\n> So IMHO it's easily worth the trouble.\n>\n>> With GSoC we don't have a choice in the matter, since Google's paying\n>> the bills and runs the show, but it sounds like in this case we at least\n>> partially do.\n>\n> I think that the autonomy and level of responsibility for the\n> mentors/project is about the same between GSoC and Outreachy. The main\n> difference is just the funding model (but again, I suspect we would not\n> have too much trouble securing external funding).\n\nThanks.\n"},{"id":"357005","messageId":"20180830192453.GC19685@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808301340280.71@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-30T19:24:53Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-30T19:24:56Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 01:46:00PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n\n> On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Jeff King wrote:\n> \n> >   - it naturally limits the candidate pool to under-represented groups\n> >     (which is the whole point of the program, but if you don't\n> >     actually care about that, then it's just a complication)\n> > \n> > So IMHO it's easily worth the trouble.\n> \n> I am willing to mentor, and the only reason that kept me from already\n> stepping forward and trying to brush up the landing page is this concern:\n> traditionally, we (as in: the core Git contributors) have been less than\n> successful in attracting and retaining contributors from under-represented\n> groups. I don't think any regular reader of this mailing list can deny\n> that.\n> \n> And while I find it very important to reach out (there are just *so* many\n> benefits to having a more diverse team), I have to ask *why* we are so\n> unsuccessful. As long as we do not even know the answer to that, is it\n> even worth pursuing Outreachy?\n> \n> I mean, if we make serious mistakes here, without even realizing, that\n> directly lead to being stuck in our old bubble, then we are prone to\n> simply repeat those mistakes over and over and over again. And that would\n> just be a waste of our time, *and* a big de-motivator for the Outreachy\n> students.\n> \n> What's your take on this?\n\nMy feeling is that our lack of diversity has less to do with driving out\ndiverse candidates, and more that they do not join in the first place.\nWhich isn't to say we _wouldn't_ drive out diversity, but that I'm not\nsure we have very good data on what happens in that second stage. If we\ncan use the program to overcome \"step 1\", that helps us get that data\n(and hopefully react to it in time to be useful, and not just use the\ncandidate as a guinea pig; I agree there is the possibility of doing\nmore harm than good to a student who becomes de-motivated).\n\nThat leaves aside the question of whether things we are doing prevent\npeople from participating in the first place. I'm certainly open to that\nidea, but I think it's a separate discussion.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"357008","messageId":"20180830194223.GD19685@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"87sh2wcak4.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-30T19:42:24Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-30T19:42:28Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 02:18:19PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:\n\n> > It doesn't need to be. As far as I know, the main reasons (from the\n> > perspective of a project) to do it through Outreachy are:\n> >\n> >  - being part of a larger program generates attention and gets the\n> >    interest of intern candidates (free advertising, if you will)\n> \n> I was wondering if we couldn't do it through Outreachy *and* also do our\n> own advertisements / possibly recruit candidates outside of the\n> Outreachy pool. In that case we'd still get the attention/outreach\n> benefits, in addition to our own...\n\nTrue. I'd worry about spreading our mentor resources too thinly (which I\nthink are probably a bigger bottleneck than actual money). But I guess\nyou're proposing to issue a larger call for candidates, and then we pick\nfrom the result (so in the end we'd end up with the same number of\nactual interns, just from a bigger pool).\n\n> Yup, but just as a clarifying point here wouldn't the participants also\n> get all the same benefits of this in the case of Outreachy+OurOwnProgram\n> if we ran OurOwnProgram concurrently to Outreachy?\n> \n> I.e. I was assuming that once candidates are \"handed off\" to a project\n> they're communicating within that project (possibly with other\n> candidates), and Outreachy is no longer very involved (except maybe for\n> progress reports / final report, but wouldn't we also do that for a\n> OurOwnProgram?).\n> \n> I may have that completely wrong though, which is why I'm asking, which\n> b.t.w. I'm doing mostly just to get an idea of how what Outreachy's role\n> is in this exactly, not to strongly advocate for a OurOwnProgram.\n\nI think there _is_ some contact and group resources between Outreachy\nand the interns. But I'm actually not sure of the extent. I know they\nencouraged interns to blog (and read each other's blogs). I don't know\nif there's an intern mailing list, irc, etc. I had the impression that\nthere is, but I don't actually know the details.\n\n> >   - it naturally limits the candidate pool to under-represented groups\n> >     (which is the whole point of the program, but if you don't\n> >     actually care about that, then it's just a complication)\n> \n> I'm fine with doing selection discrimination of under-represented groups\n> through such a program. Particularly if, as you mention, there's\n> earmarked funding for it which otherwise might not be available, so it's\n> not zero-sum when it comes to a hypothetical alternative of casting a\n> wider net of our own (and as you mention, that would be more work).\n\nYeah, just for reference, my \"you\" there was a hypothetical \"one might\nor might not care about...\", not responding to your particular email.\n\n> I do think it's unfortunate that the selection criteria for the program\n> privileges U.S. citizens and U.S. residents above other people,\n> particularly since they're also accepting worldwide candidates (and\n> we've had at least one non-American participant that I know about), so\n> it's not e.g. for U.S. administrative or tax reasons as one might expect\n> if they only accepted Americans.\n\nI assume you mean this bit from the eligibility rules:\n\n  You must meet one of the following criteria:\n    - You live any where in the world and you identify as a woman (cis\n      or trans), trans man, or genderqueer person (including genderfluid\n      or genderfree).\n    - You live in the United States or you are a U.S. national or\n      permanent resident living abroad, AND you are a person of any\n      gender who is Black/African American, Hispanic/Latin@, Native\n      American/American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or\n      Pacific Islander\n\nSo there are more categories for the US, but I think that is largely\nbecause under-representation is somewhat regional. Being black in the US\nis different than being black in Africa. Certainly one could argue that\nAfrica as a whole is under-represented in the tech world, but I think\nyou'd probably need to draw different boundaries in different places if\nyou want to extend opportunities to those who are least likely to\nalready have them.\n\nI don't know what those groupings would look like in, say, Europe. If\nyou're suggesting that the program would be better off having\nregion-specific rules for more regions, I'd certainly agree with that. I\ndon't know if it's something the Outreachy folks have considered or\ndiscussed; it might be worth bringing it up.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"357073","messageId":"CAP8UFD0SYECLk--7JsZkxBdQeJPuG1Ut5GMLsCJHqM+jG7C0jQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"20180828151419.GA17467@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-08-31T08:16:49Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-31T08:16:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:\n> The Outreachy application period is set to begin on September 10th for\n> interns participating in the December-March program. Do we want to\n> participate?\n>\n> Details on the program are here:\n>\n>   https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/\n>\n> If we want to, then we need:\n>\n>   1. Volunteers to mentor. This is similar in scope to being a GSoC\n>      mentor.\n\nI volunteer to co-mentor.\n\n>   2. To get our landing page and list of projects in order (and also\n>      micro-projects for applicants). This can probably build on the\n>      previous round at:\n>\n>        https://git.github.io/Outreachy-15/\n>\n>      and on the project/microprojects lists for GSoC (which will need\n>      some updating and culling).\n\nOk to take a look at that.\n\n>   3. To figure out funding (unlike GSoC, the intern stipend comes from\n>      the projects). I can look into getting outside funds (which is what\n>      we did last year). Worst case, we do have enough project money to\n>      cover an intern. Last year[1] opinions were that this was a\n>      reasonable use of project money, but of course new opinions are\n>      welcome.\n\nI can also look at getting outside funds.\n\nMy opinion though is that it is probably better if the Git project can\nuse its own fund for this, as it makes it easier for possible mentors\nif they don't need to look at getting outside funds.\n\nThanks for sending this,\nChristian.\n"},{"id":"357075","messageId":"CAP8UFD0AnS1Zp2QdqtLTqBrsUiogODC_apG-vumxRuoijW=r4A@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"20180830192453.GC19685@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-08-31T08:54:17Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-31T08:54:21Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:\n> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 01:46:00PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n>\n>> I am willing to mentor, and the only reason that kept me from already\n>> stepping forward and trying to brush up the landing page is this concern:\n>> traditionally, we (as in: the core Git contributors) have been less than\n>> successful in attracting and retaining contributors from under-represented\n>> groups. I don't think any regular reader of this mailing list can deny\n>> that.\n>>\n>> And while I find it very important to reach out (there are just *so* many\n>> benefits to having a more diverse team), I have to ask *why* we are so\n>> unsuccessful. As long as we do not even know the answer to that, is it\n>> even worth pursuing Outreachy?\n>>\n>> I mean, if we make serious mistakes here, without even realizing, that\n>> directly lead to being stuck in our old bubble, then we are prone to\n>> simply repeat those mistakes over and over and over again. And that would\n>> just be a waste of our time, *and* a big de-motivator for the Outreachy\n>> students.\n>>\n>> What's your take on this?\n>\n> My feeling is that our lack of diversity has less to do with driving out\n> diverse candidates, and more that they do not join in the first place.\n\nI agree with that.\n\n> Which isn't to say we _wouldn't_ drive out diversity, but that I'm not\n> sure we have very good data on what happens in that second stage.\n\nMaybe we could ask Olga in CC what we could do better?\n\n> If we\n> can use the program to overcome \"step 1\", that helps us get that data\n> (and hopefully react to it in time to be useful, and not just use the\n> candidate as a guinea pig; I agree there is the possibility of doing\n> more harm than good to a student who becomes de-motivated).\n\nI agree.\n\n> That leaves aside the question of whether things we are doing prevent\n> people from participating in the first place. I'm certainly open to that\n> idea, but I think it's a separate discussion.\n\nYeah, I think there is a lot we could do to improve in this area and\nit would help.\n"},{"id":"357080","messageId":"CAL21BmmmD1V+EWFevNT1t9M+nwrN9GR_PTx981ji_zGwfbpd_A@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD0AnS1Zp2QdqtLTqBrsUiogODC_apG-vumxRuoijW=r4A@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Оля Тележная","fromEmail":"olyatelezhnaya@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-08-31T10:30:05Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-31T10:30:24Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"olyatelezhnaya@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/11246099?v=4"},"body":"Hi everyone,\n\nI was Outreachy intern last winter. I guess I need to speak up: I will\nbe happy if my feedback helps you.\nAt first, I want to repeat all thanks to Outreachy organizers and Git\nmentors. That was unique experience and I am so proud of being a part\nof this project. But, I need to say that my internship wasn't ideal.\nMentors, please do not feel guilty: I just want to improve the quality\nof future internships and give some advises.\n\nI guess some of the problems aren't related to Git, and it's Outreachy\nweak points. Please forward this email to Outreachy organizers if you\nwant.\n\n1. The main problem of Outreachy internship is positioning. I mean, I\nhad strong confidence that it's an internship for newbies in\nprogramming. All my friends had the same confidence, and that's the\nreason why 2 my friends failed in the middle of the Outreachy\ninternship. Load was so big for them, noone explained this fact in the\nbeginning, noone helped with this situation during the internship. I\nwas thinking I could be overqualified and I took someone's place (I\nhad 2 other SWE internships before Outreachy). The truth is that my\nskills were barely enough.\n\n2. Please tell more about minimal requirements: write it down on a\nlanding page in the beginning and maybe repeat them in every task. I\nguess it would be the same this year: good knowledge of C, gdb, Git\n(as a user: intern needs to know how to work with forks, git remote,\ngit rebase -i, etc), Shell, base understanding of Linux terminal,\nbeing ready to work remotely. It's good idea to mention that it's not\n100% requirement, but anyway at least 60% from the list must be\nfamiliar.\n\n3. If you decide to be a mentor - at first, thanks a lot. Please be\nready to spend A LOT OF time on it. You need to explain not only the\ntask to your intern, but also how to split the task into subtasks, how\nto look for solutions, how to work with the terminal, how to debug\nbetter and many other questions. It's not only about solving\ninternship task. It's about learning something new. And I did not\nmention code reviews: there would be many stupid errors and it's a\ntalent not to be angry about that.\n\n4. I fully sure that you need to talk with your intern by the voice. I\nmean regular calls, at least once a week. It's good idea to share the\ndesktop and show how you are working, what are you using, etc.\nAsk your intern to share the desktop: you need to feel confident that\nthey understand how to work with the task. Help them with the\nshortcuts.\nRemote work is so hard at the beginning, I feel alone with all my\nproblems, feel ashamed to ask questions (because they are not \"smart\nenough\"), sometimes I didn't know what to ask. I need to mention that\nI had almost 1 year of remote work experience, and that helped me a\nlot. But other interns do not have such experience.\nActually, I am sure that the only reason why I successfully finished\nthe internship is that my mentors believed in me and did not fire me\nin the middle. I personally think that I failed first half of the\ninternship, and only in the end I had almost clear understanding\nwhat's going on. (My friend was fired in the same situation.)\n\n5. In the ideal world, I want to force all mentors to get special\ncourses (it will solve problems 2-3-4). Great developer is not equal\nto great mentor. And, if you work with really newbie, it becomes so\nnecessary.\n\nI hope that was useful.\n\nIn the end I want to say that there's no special requirements to\ninvolve people from unrepresented groups. I see no racism or sexism in\nmailing lists, my mentors were polite and friendly, I can't say\nanything bad here. Please keep this safe environment and explain your\ncolleagues if you see something bad.\nIn my opinion, the problem is that Git is not friendly with newbies in\ngeneral. We do not have task tracker, regular mentors (without any\nspecial programs: just some developers that are ready to help with\nfirst patch). The code is not structured properly, this is additional\ndifficulty for newbie. This system with mailing lists and patches... I\nunderstand that it's not possible to make all processes perfect in one\nmoment, but at least we need to help all newbies to solve all these\nproblems in the beginning.\nI guess that there are only 2 scenarios how to become Git developer.\nFirst one is internship. Second is to ask your colleague (who is Git\ndeveloper) to help you.\nI don't want to speak on behalf of all women, but I guess many girls\nfeel not confident enough to ask for such help. For me the only\npossibility to start was the internship.\n\nSome personal info: I am in the process of changing jobs. I wish I\ncould help you with mentoring (not as a main mentor, maybe as a second\nor third one - my experience as an intern could be useful, I could\nhelp other interns to start), but I can't predict my load. If you are\ninterested in my help, please write me. And, by the way, please delete\nmy task from list of internship tasks, I will finish it by myself just\nwhen I have some free time :)\n\nOlga\n"},{"id":"357147","messageId":"CAP8UFD0v32h+Ls_skvNHeq2n-Ep01KmrRghAy0u9NA3hu2R0gw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"CAL21BmmmD1V+EWFevNT1t9M+nwrN9GR_PTx981ji_zGwfbpd_A@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-09-01T07:11:47Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-01T07:11:54Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"Hi Olga,\n\nOn Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Оля Тележная <olyatelezhnaya@gmail.com> wrote:\n> Hi everyone,\n>\n> I was Outreachy intern last winter. I guess I need to speak up: I will\n> be happy if my feedback helps you.\n> At first, I want to repeat all thanks to Outreachy organizers and Git\n> mentors. That was unique experience and I am so proud of being a part\n> of this project. But, I need to say that my internship wasn't ideal.\n> Mentors, please do not feel guilty: I just want to improve the quality\n> of future internships and give some advises.\n\nThanks a lot for this feedback! I think it can be very useful and I\ndon't feel guilty as I think no one is really to blame in these kinds\nof situations. We all have to learn how we can improve.\n\nI think a part of the problem as just that the work is really very\ndifficult for interns even if it doesn't seem that it should be so\ndifficult which makes the intern/mentor relationship tricky.\n\n> I guess some of the problems aren't related to Git, and it's Outreachy\n> weak points. Please forward this email to Outreachy organizers if you\n> want.\n>\n> 1. The main problem of Outreachy internship is positioning. I mean, I\n> had strong confidence that it's an internship for newbies in\n> programming. All my friends had the same confidence, and that's the\n> reason why 2 my friends failed in the middle of the Outreachy\n> internship. Load was so big for them, noone explained this fact in the\n> beginning, noone helped with this situation during the internship. I\n> was thinking I could be overqualified and I took someone's place (I\n> had 2 other SWE internships before Outreachy). The truth is that my\n> skills were barely enough.\n\nYeah, but will it be better if Outreachy scares too many people away\nfrom applying? I am not really sure.\n\nAlso I think success depends not so much on the students/interns\ntechnical skills but on their willingness to ask questions and their\nability to get the help the need. Maybe Outreachy and Git should state\nthat more clearly.\n\nFor a long time I thought that it could be enough to just tell\nstudents/interns that mentors are here to help, so they should not be\nafraid of asking even the most basic questions. But over time I have\nbeen realizing that mentors should actively try to understand what\nhelp the student/intern need.\n\n> 2. Please tell more about minimal requirements: write it down on a\n> landing page in the beginning and maybe repeat them in every task. I\n> guess it would be the same this year: good knowledge of C, gdb, Git\n> (as a user: intern needs to know how to work with forks, git remote,\n> git rebase -i, etc), Shell, base understanding of Linux terminal,\n> being ready to work remotely. It's good idea to mention that it's not\n> 100% requirement, but anyway at least 60% from the list must be\n> familiar.\n\nOn our project page (https://git.github.io/Outreachy-15/) we tried a\nbit to do that, for example there are things like:\n\n    Language: C\n    Difficulty: medium to hard\n\nfor each project. And there were no \"easy\" tasks.\n\nSo yeah instead of \"Language: C\" we could have something like:\n\n    Requirements: very good knowledge and practice of C, shell, gdb,\nGit, Linux terminal, ...\n\nand for difficulty we could remove \"medium\" and just select between\n\"hard\", \"very hard\" and \"impossible\" :-)\n\nBut this could scare possible students/interns away and that's not\nreally what we want.\n\nWe think that if someone can successfully complete a micro project,\nthey should have enough basic technical skills to get started and then\nwe can teach them what they need. Maybe we could state that more\nclearly?\n\nI also think that the Git project doesn't make enough effort to be\nnewcomer friendly. Maybe we could start by adding a document somewhere\nthat could contain basic useful information for newcomers? Perhaps\nthis could be based on the presentation that Peff gave at the\nbeginning of the Bloomberg Hackathon last November?\n\n> 3. If you decide to be a mentor - at first, thanks a lot. Please be\n> ready to spend A LOT OF time on it. You need to explain not only the\n> task to your intern, but also how to split the task into subtasks, how\n> to look for solutions, how to work with the terminal, how to debug\n> better and many other questions. It's not only about solving\n> internship task. It's about learning something new. And I did not\n> mention code reviews: there would be many stupid errors and it's a\n> talent not to be angry about that.\n\nI think mentors are ready to do that. Often the problem is that we\njust don't know how we could help or how we can make the\nstudents/interns confident enough to tell us how we could help or what\nis blocking them.\n\n> 4. I fully sure that you need to talk with your intern by the voice. I\n> mean regular calls, at least once a week. It's good idea to share the\n> desktop and show how you are working, what are you using, etc.\n> Ask your intern to share the desktop: you need to feel confident that\n> they understand how to work with the task. Help them with the\n> shortcuts.\n\nThere are interns/students who might not like doing that. So I am not\nsure if should make it mandatory, but maybe we should recommend and\nadvertise that it's a good idea to do these kind of things. Dscho\ntalked about pair programming in another thread and I think it is also\na good idea.\n\n> Remote work is so hard at the beginning, I feel alone with all my\n> problems, feel ashamed to ask questions (because they are not \"smart\n> enough\"), sometimes I didn't know what to ask.\n\nI really think that a big part of the problem is that some\nstudents/interns feel ashamed to ask questions or to ask for help.\nThey might think they will be evaluated based on their skills or\nproblem solving abilities, so they are afraid to tell that they need\nhelp as they might think that it could be interpreted as not being as\ngood as they should be.\n\nMaybe we might state more clearly that students/interns are failed\nmostly when we think they are not putting in the amount of effort or\ncommunication that is required, and that asking for help is actually\nexpected and considered good communication and good effort?\n\nMaybe there are some interns/students who would be less afraid to ask\nfor help privately to someone who is not their official mentor,\nbecause they think it will not count in how they will be evaluated?\n\n> I need to mention that\n> I had almost 1 year of remote work experience, and that helped me a\n> lot. But other interns do not have such experience.\n> Actually, I am sure that the only reason why I successfully finished\n> the internship is that my mentors believed in me and did not fire me\n> in the middle. I personally think that I failed first half of the\n> internship, and only in the end I had almost clear understanding\n> what's going on. (My friend was fired in the same situation.)\n\nI cannot tell about why your friend was failed. I think though that\nyou communicated that you needed help (even if it was not always clear\nwhat kind of help) and you accepted, or maybe asked, to have Google\nHangout calls which helped us find what kind of help you needed, and\nthen things went much better.\n\nI really hope that students/interns could be less afraid to\ncommunicate that they need help and if possible what kind of help, as\nI think it would improve the relationship and the outcome a lot.\n\nWhat do you think mentors could do to make them more comfortable in\nasking for help?\n\n> 5. In the ideal world, I want to force all mentors to get special\n> courses (it will solve problems 2-3-4). Great developer is not equal\n> to great mentor. And, if you work with really newbie, it becomes so\n> necessary.\n\nI agree that mentors can and should improve but it's difficult to know\nspecifically how.\n\n> I hope that was useful.\n\nYes, I think it can be very useful.\n\n> In the end I want to say that there's no special requirements to\n> involve people from unrepresented groups. I see no racism or sexism in\n> mailing lists, my mentors were polite and friendly, I can't say\n> anything bad here. Please keep this safe environment and explain your\n> colleagues if you see something bad.\n\nThanks for the kind words and the encouragement.\n\n> In my opinion, the problem is that Git is not friendly with newbies in\n> general.\n\nI very much agree.\n\n> We do not have task tracker, regular mentors (without any\n> special programs: just some developers that are ready to help with\n> first patch).\n\nAbout developers that are ready to help with first patch, I think\nthere are many people reviewing patches and they feel like they are\nhelping not just reviewing which I think is true. Most people try to\ngive constructive reviews.\n\nDo you think we should kind of \"tag\" some experienced Git developers\nas \"regular mentors\" to make it clear that they are willing to help\nnewcomers privately outside GSoC or Outreachy?\n\n> The code is not structured properly, this is additional\n> difficulty for newbie. This system with mailing lists and patches... I\n> understand that it's not possible to make all processes perfect in one\n> moment, but at least we need to help all newbies to solve all these\n> problems in the beginning.\n\nThere are people trying to help on this, like Dscho with GitGitGadget,\nEric with public-inbox.org, but I agree we should try to do more.\n\nMaybe we could also improve by:\n\n- adding information for new comers (see above)\n- making the build clearer about why it failed\n- adding information somewhere about how to get help, how to ask for reviews\n\n> I guess that there are only 2 scenarios how to become Git developer.\n> First one is internship. Second is to ask your colleague (who is Git\n> developer) to help you.\n\nAgain I agree that it is very difficult for new comers (and even\nsometimes for long time contributors).\n\n> I don't want to speak on behalf of all women, but I guess many girls\n> feel not confident enough to ask for such help. For me the only\n> possibility to start was the internship.\n\nYeah, I think the confidence barrier is very big not just for women by the way.\n\n> Some personal info: I am in the process of changing jobs. I wish I\n> could help you with mentoring (not as a main mentor, maybe as a second\n> or third one - my experience as an intern could be useful, I could\n> help other interns to start),\n\nThat would be really great!\n\n> but I can't predict my load. If you are\n> interested in my help, please write me.\n\nThanks for this offer! And yeah I understand that it might not be a good time.\n\n> And, by the way, please delete\n> my task from list of internship tasks, I will finish it by myself just\n> when I have some free time :)\n\nGreat! Yeah we will work on a new task list hopefully soon for the\nnext internship round.\n\nThanks a lot,\nChristian.\n"},{"id":"357154","messageId":"20180901083436.GB25852@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"CAL21BmmmD1V+EWFevNT1t9M+nwrN9GR_PTx981ji_zGwfbpd_A@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-09-01T08:34:36Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-01T08:34:40Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 01:30:05PM +0300, Оля Тележная wrote:\n\n> I was Outreachy intern last winter. I guess I need to speak up: I will\n> be happy if my feedback helps you.\n> At first, I want to repeat all thanks to Outreachy organizers and Git\n> mentors. That was unique experience and I am so proud of being a part\n> of this project. But, I need to say that my internship wasn't ideal.\n> Mentors, please do not feel guilty: I just want to improve the quality\n> of future internships and give some advises.\n\nAs one of those mentors, let me first say: thank you for this feedback.\nIt's very valuable to get your honest perspective.\n\nI more or less agree with everything you said. A few specific comments:\n\n> 1. The main problem of Outreachy internship is positioning. I mean, I\n> had strong confidence that it's an internship for newbies in\n> programming. All my friends had the same confidence, and that's the\n> reason why 2 my friends failed in the middle of the Outreachy\n> internship. Load was so big for them, noone explained this fact in the\n> beginning, noone helped with this situation during the internship. I\n> was thinking I could be overqualified and I took someone's place (I\n> had 2 other SWE internships before Outreachy). The truth is that my\n> skills were barely enough.\n\nSome of this may be due to Outreachy (I'm not very familiar with the\nmaterials they use to get applicants). But we propose the individual\nprojects, and I don't think there's anything stopping us from something\nthat might be smaller in scope (i.e., to focus more on \"soft\" skills\nlike participating in the project, and less time on system design or\ntricky coding).\n\nI think ideally we'd have various project options with a range of\ndifficulties, and part of the application period could involve steering\ncandidates to the right project.\n\n> 2. Please tell more about minimal requirements: write it down on a\n> landing page in the beginning and maybe repeat them in every task. I\n> guess it would be the same this year: good knowledge of C, gdb, Git\n> (as a user: intern needs to know how to work with forks, git remote,\n> git rebase -i, etc), Shell, base understanding of Linux terminal,\n> being ready to work remotely. It's good idea to mention that it's not\n> 100% requirement, but anyway at least 60% from the list must be\n> familiar.\n\nYes, I agree that we don't really communicate the expected skills very\nwell. That's something we should be able to fix pretty immediately for\nthe next round.\n\n> 3. If you decide to be a mentor - at first, thanks a lot. Please be\n> ready to spend A LOT OF time on it. You need to explain not only the\n> task to your intern, but also how to split the task into subtasks, how\n> to look for solutions, how to work with the terminal, how to debug\n> better and many other questions. It's not only about solving\n> internship task. It's about learning something new. And I did not\n> mention code reviews: there would be many stupid errors and it's a\n> talent not to be angry about that.\n\nI'd agree with this. I think one of the biggest mistakes I made for your\ninternship was not being focused and spending enough time. Johannes\nmentioned that he actually does online pair-programming with his GSoC\nstudents, and I think that would have helped a lot in our case.\n\nIronically, I was actually worried about being _too_ involved (which is\nobviously dumb in retrospect). Since there were some interesting design\nproblems, I didn't want to just dictate \"here's what your design should\nlook like, go code it and get back to me\". I wanted to give you the\nspace to explore the problem, maybe even make some mistakes, and be\nthere to \"unstick\" you when you got stuck. But with basically weekly\ncheck-ins, 3 months goes by _really_ fast.\n\nI think we probably needed to be talking things through and working in\nreal-time at least an hour a day.\n\n> 4. I fully sure that you need to talk with your intern by the voice. I\n> mean regular calls, at least once a week. It's good idea to share the\n> desktop and show how you are working, what are you using, etc.\n> Ask your intern to share the desktop: you need to feel confident that\n> they understand how to work with the task. Help them with the\n> shortcuts.\n\nYeah. I think it would have helped a lot to have a real-time session\nwhere we're actually working on the problem collaboratively, and not\njust discussing problems you might have run into. That gives the\nopportunity to reveal workflow issues: the intern can see how the mentor\ndoes things (and ask \"how/why did you do that neat thing?\") and the\nmentor can see how the intern does things (\"I see you're doing it this\nway; did you know you can also do it this way, which is easier?\").\n\n> 5. In the ideal world, I want to force all mentors to get special\n> courses (it will solve problems 2-3-4). Great developer is not equal\n> to great mentor. And, if you work with really newbie, it becomes so\n> necessary.\n\nI definitely agree with the \"not equal\" thing. It might even be\ninversely proportional in some cases. ;)\n\n> I hope that was useful.\n\nIt was. Thanks again for your thoughts.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"357155","messageId":"20180901084321.GC25852@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD0SYECLk--7JsZkxBdQeJPuG1Ut5GMLsCJHqM+jG7C0jQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-09-01T08:43:22Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-01T08:43:25Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:16:49AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:\n\n> >   2. To get our landing page and list of projects in order (and also\n> >      micro-projects for applicants). This can probably build on the\n> >      previous round at:\n> >\n> >        https://git.github.io/Outreachy-15/\n> >\n> >      and on the project/microprojects lists for GSoC (which will need\n> >      some updating and culling).\n> \n> Ok to take a look at that.\n\nThanks. I think sooner is better for this (for you or anybody else who's\ninterested in mentoring). The application period opens on September\n10th, but I think the (still growing) list of projects is already being\nlooked at by potential candidates.\n\n> >   3. To figure out funding (unlike GSoC, the intern stipend comes from\n> >      the projects). I can look into getting outside funds (which is what\n> >      we did last year). Worst case, we do have enough project money to\n> >      cover an intern. Last year[1] opinions were that this was a\n> >      reasonable use of project money, but of course new opinions are\n> >      welcome.\n> \n> I can also look at getting outside funds.\n> \n> My opinion though is that it is probably better if the Git project can\n> use its own fund for this, as it makes it easier for possible mentors\n> if they don't need to look at getting outside funds.\n\nI disagree. An internship costs more than we generally take in over the\ncourse of a year. So we would eventually run out of money doing this.\n\nI also think it doesn't need to be the mentor's responsibility to find\nthe funding. That can be up to an \"org admin\", and I don't think it\nshould be too big a deal (I had no trouble getting funding from GitHub\nlast year, and I don't expect any this year; I just didn't want to start\nthat process until I knew we were serious about participating).\n\nSo if you (or anybody else) wants to mentor, please focus on the project\nlist and application materials.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"357180","messageId":"CAP8UFD1yZzbfuss8PyrXQ9SS+rKuS2vey4Mn9xtxWL4rJy2q_A@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"20180901084321.GC25852@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-09-02T07:37:59Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-02T07:38:03Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:\n> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:16:49AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:\n\n>> I can also look at getting outside funds.\n>>\n>> My opinion though is that it is probably better if the Git project can\n>> use its own fund for this, as it makes it easier for possible mentors\n>> if they don't need to look at getting outside funds.\n>\n> I disagree. An internship costs more than we generally take in over the\n> course of a year. So we would eventually run out of money doing this.\n\nI think we would have time to figure out a way to get more funds\nbefore that happens.\n\n> I also think it doesn't need to be the mentor's responsibility to find\n> the funding. That can be up to an \"org admin\", and I don't think it\n> should be too big a deal (I had no trouble getting funding from GitHub\n> last year, and I don't expect any this year; I just didn't want to start\n> that process until I knew we were serious about participating).\n\nMy experience so far with org admins who don't mentor is that they are\nlikely to loose interest in the program over time and stop doing much\n(which is natural, I don't blame anyone). This is what happened with\nGSoC org admins (who don't mentor), so most of the admin work now\nfalls back on mentors (org admins that mentor).\n\nThat's why I fear that in a few years the burden of finding funds for\nOutreachy might fall back on the mentors too.\n\n> So if you (or anybody else) wants to mentor, please focus on the project\n> list and application materials.\n\nOk, I will do that. Thanks for taking care of the funding.\n"},{"id":"357187","messageId":"20180902084301.GA21979@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD1yZzbfuss8PyrXQ9SS+rKuS2vey4Mn9xtxWL4rJy2q_A@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-09-02T08:43:01Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-02T08:45:10Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 09:37:59AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:\n\n> > I also think it doesn't need to be the mentor's responsibility to find\n> > the funding. That can be up to an \"org admin\", and I don't think it\n> > should be too big a deal (I had no trouble getting funding from GitHub\n> > last year, and I don't expect any this year; I just didn't want to start\n> > that process until I knew we were serious about participating).\n> \n> My experience so far with org admins who don't mentor is that they are\n> likely to loose interest in the program over time and stop doing much\n> (which is natural, I don't blame anyone). This is what happened with\n> GSoC org admins (who don't mentor), so most of the admin work now\n> falls back on mentors (org admins that mentor).\n> \n> That's why I fear that in a few years the burden of finding funds for\n> Outreachy might fall back on the mentors too.\n\nYeah, I agree that might eventually happen. I think if there are admins\nwilling to look for funds, though, we are better off saving our project\nmoney for now.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"357195","messageId":"CAP8UFD0qk3SkBhuEiG+-qhTjXry1SH0SmoFjSNmPr6WZrLfijw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"20180901084321.GC25852@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-09-03T04:36:19Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-03T04:36:22Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:\n> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:16:49AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:\n>\n>> >   2. To get our landing page and list of projects in order (and also\n>> >      micro-projects for applicants). This can probably build on the\n>> >      previous round at:\n>> >\n>> >        https://git.github.io/Outreachy-15/\n>> >\n>> >      and on the project/microprojects lists for GSoC (which will need\n>> >      some updating and culling).\n>>\n>> Ok to take a look at that.\n>\n> Thanks. I think sooner is better for this (for you or anybody else who's\n> interested in mentoring). The application period opens on September\n> 10th, but I think the (still growing) list of projects is already being\n> looked at by potential candidates.\n\nSo here is a landing page for the next Outreachy round:\n\nhttps://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/\n\nabout the microprojects I am not sure which page I should create or improve.\n"},{"id":"357407","messageId":"CAP8UFD3DrhA9C0=k-ie_fnpKwmbezQ9ufp1RPHrZ7A-VUjhz0g@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD0qk3SkBhuEiG+-qhTjXry1SH0SmoFjSNmPr6WZrLfijw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-09-05T07:20:23Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-05T07:20:26Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 6:36 AM, Christian Couder\n<christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:\n> On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:\n>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:16:49AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:\n>>\n>>> >   2. To get our landing page and list of projects in order (and also\n>>> >      micro-projects for applicants). This can probably build on the\n>>> >      previous round at:\n>>> >\n>>> >        https://git.github.io/Outreachy-15/\n>>> >\n>>> >      and on the project/microprojects lists for GSoC (which will need\n>>> >      some updating and culling).\n>>>\n>>> Ok to take a look at that.\n>>\n>> Thanks. I think sooner is better for this (for you or anybody else who's\n>> interested in mentoring). The application period opens on September\n>> 10th, but I think the (still growing) list of projects is already being\n>> looked at by potential candidates.\n\nDo you know where is this list? On\nhttps://www.outreachy.org/apply/project-selection/ they say\n\"Information about projects are unavailable until applications open\".\n\n> So here is a landing page for the next Outreachy round:\n>\n> https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/\n>\n> about the microprojects I am not sure which page I should create or improve.\n\nAny idea about this? Also any idea about new microprojects would be nice.\n"},{"id":"357420","messageId":"874lf4rsc6.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"20180830194223.GD19685@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason","fromEmail":"avarab@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-09-05T13:23:21Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-05T13:23:27Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"avarab@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45301?v=4"},"body":"\nOn Thu, Aug 30 2018, Jeff King wrote:\n\n> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 02:18:19PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:\n>> >   - it naturally limits the candidate pool to under-represented groups\n>> >     (which is the whole point of the program, but if you don't\n>> >     actually care about that, then it's just a complication)\n>>\n>> I'm fine with doing selection discrimination of under-represented groups\n>> through such a program. Particularly if, as you mention, there's\n>> earmarked funding for it which otherwise might not be available, so it's\n>> not zero-sum when it comes to a hypothetical alternative of casting a\n>> wider net of our own (and as you mention, that would be more work).\n>\n> Yeah, just for reference, my \"you\" there was a hypothetical \"one might\n> or might not care about...\", not responding to your particular email.\n>\n>> I do think it's unfortunate that the selection criteria for the program\n>> privileges U.S. citizens and U.S. residents above other people,\n>> particularly since they're also accepting worldwide candidates (and\n>> we've had at least one non-American participant that I know about), so\n>> it's not e.g. for U.S. administrative or tax reasons as one might expect\n>> if they only accepted Americans.\n>\n> I assume you mean this bit from the eligibility rules:\n>\n>   You must meet one of the following criteria:\n>     - You live any where in the world and you identify as a woman (cis\n>       or trans), trans man, or genderqueer person (including genderfluid\n>       or genderfree).\n>     - You live in the United States or you are a U.S. national or\n>>       permanent resident living abroad, AND you are a person of any\n>       gender who is Black/African American, Hispanic/Latin@, Native\n>       American/American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or\n>       Pacific Islander\n>\n> So there are more categories for the US, but I think that is largely\n> because under-representation is somewhat regional. Being black in the US\n> is different than being black in Africa. Certainly one could argue that\n> Africa as a whole is under-represented in the tech world, but I think\n> you'd probably need to draw different boundaries in different places if\n> you want to extend opportunities to those who are least likely to\n> already have them.\n>\n> I don't know what those groupings would look like in, say, Europe. If\n> you're suggesting that the program would be better off having\n> region-specific rules for more regions, I'd certainly agree with that. I\n> don't know if it's something the Outreachy folks have considered or\n> discussed; it might be worth bringing it up.\n\n[I don't mean to drag this up again, I had a draft here that I hadn't\nsent, and thought given that I'm standing for the Git Project Leadership\nCommittee which presumably has something to say about this it was better\nif I clarified].\n\nI don't mean that just doing the equivalent of s/U.S. national//g on the\ncriteria would improve things, for the reasons you explained that\nclearly wouldn't be an improvement or in the spirit of the criteria.\n\nI was imagining that there was some way to phrase this that would\ninclude the current group(s) but be country-neutral. E.g. instead of\ntalking about some specific minorities in specific countries say that if\nyou're in a group below such-and-such a percentage.\n\nAlthough reading this again and consulting Wikipedia they seem to be\nusing all U.S. census groups below 20% with the exception of one (two if\nyou count \"Other\"), so I don't know how that would translate to other\ncountries, or if that's just an unintentional omission. Perhaps some mix\nof group + mean income within that group? I don't know, and I'm not\nfamiliar enough with the U.S. to speculate as to how they came up with\nthat.\n\nOr, just a third criteria of:\n\n    Projects can opt-in to consider non-U.S. nationals or residents who\n    they believe fulfill the spirit of criteria #2 as it would apply to\n    another country.\n\nThen we could (if Outreachy approves) opt-in to that, since considering\nthat on a case-by-case basis is surely less gnarly than trying to come\nup with some general rule.\n\nSo again, I don't think this particular thing is a big deal, or\nsomething worth spending time worrying about at this point. Just\nsomething to keep an eye out for and potentially gently poke Outreachy\nabout.\n\nI just think we might stand to get better/more candidates and have more\nfair process, and be seen to spend project funds in a less biased way if\nthe criteria wasn't an OR'd statement whose second half starts off by\noutright limiting itself to less than 5% of the world population based\non a specific nationality, before further narrowing things down.\n\n"},{"id":"357504","messageId":"20180906011428.GA5024@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD3DrhA9C0=k-ie_fnpKwmbezQ9ufp1RPHrZ7A-VUjhz0g@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-09-06T01:14:28Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-06T01:14:32Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 09:20:23AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:\n\n> >> Thanks. I think sooner is better for this (for you or anybody else who's\n> >> interested in mentoring). The application period opens on September\n> >> 10th, but I think the (still growing) list of projects is already being\n> >> looked at by potential candidates.\n> \n> Do you know where is this list? On\n> https://www.outreachy.org/apply/project-selection/ they say\n> \"Information about projects are unavailable until applications open\".\n\nThis was the list I was looking at (scroll down below the timeline):\n\n  https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/\n\nBut yeah, most of the \"current projects\" lists just say \"not available\nyet\", so I think we're actually OK until the 10th.\n\n> > So here is a landing page for the next Outreachy round:\n> >\n> > https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/\n> >\n> > about the microprojects I am not sure which page I should create or improve.\n> \n> Any idea about this? Also any idea about new microprojects would be nice.\n\nI think #leftoverbits is your best bet for micro-projects. Last year I\nthink we had interns actually hunt for them via the list archive. That's\na little unfriendly for total newcomers, I think, but it also does give\na chance to demonstrate some skills. Perhaps it would be help to create\na curated list of such bits.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"357505","messageId":"20180906012143.GA7477@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD0qk3SkBhuEiG+-qhTjXry1SH0SmoFjSNmPr6WZrLfijw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-09-06T01:21:43Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-06T01:21:46Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 06:36:19AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:\n\n> So here is a landing page for the next Outreachy round:\n> \n> https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/\n> \n> about the microprojects I am not sure which page I should create or improve.\n\nThanks. I signed us up as a community (making me the \"coordinator\" in\ntheir terminology). I think the procedure is a little different this\nyear, and we actually propose projects to mentor through their system.\nSo anybody interested in mentoring should go here:\n\n  https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/git/\n\n(and you'll need to create a login if you don't have one from last\nyear). You should be able to click through \"Submit a Project Proposal\",\nafter which the fields are pretty self-explanatory.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"357522","messageId":"CAP8UFD1nbv6=6JLnOCkmCcZjNOcDfOm4oH7pxHsYcddUYUxBPw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"20180906012143.GA7477@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-09-06T09:51:49Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-06T09:51:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:21 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:\n> On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 06:36:19AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:\n>\n>> So here is a landing page for the next Outreachy round:\n>>\n>> https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/\n>>\n>> about the microprojects I am not sure which page I should create or improve.\n>\n> Thanks. I signed us up as a community (making me the \"coordinator\" in\n> their terminology). I think the procedure is a little different this\n> year, and we actually propose projects to mentor through their system.\n\nYeah, I think the https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/ is not actually necessary.\n\n> So anybody interested in mentoring should go here:\n>\n>   https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/git/\n>\n> (and you'll need to create a login if you don't have one from last\n> year). You should be able to click through \"Submit a Project Proposal\",\n> after which the fields are pretty self-explanatory.\n\nI did that for the \"Improve `git bisect`\" project. As the\n\"coordinator\", you will need to approve that project.\n\nI think the person who submits a project becomes some kind of primary\nmentor for the project. So Dscho, if you want to be such a mentor for\none or both of the other projects on the Outreachy-17 page, please\nsubmit the project(s) otherwise please tell me and I will submit them.\nYou are free of course to change things in these projects when you\nsubmit them or to submit other completely different projects.\n"},{"id":"357523","messageId":"CAP8UFD3-djatPqoVGNGWNQkuJ84BboFMYrGSAEOQDygjJVcqeg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"20180906011428.GA5024@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-09-06T09:58:16Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-06T09:58:21Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:\n> On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 09:20:23AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:\n>\n>> >> Thanks. I think sooner is better for this (for you or anybody else who's\n>> >> interested in mentoring). The application period opens on September\n>> >> 10th, but I think the (still growing) list of projects is already being\n>> >> looked at by potential candidates.\n>>\n>> Do you know where is this list? On\n>> https://www.outreachy.org/apply/project-selection/ they say\n>> \"Information about projects are unavailable until applications open\".\n>\n> This was the list I was looking at (scroll down below the timeline):\n>\n>   https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/\n\nOk, so it's the list of \"communities\" not \"projects\" in Outreachy terms.\n\n> But yeah, most of the \"current projects\" lists just say \"not available\n> yet\", so I think we're actually OK until the 10th.\n\nYeah, I think so too.\n\n>> > So here is a landing page for the next Outreachy round:\n>> >\n>> > https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/\n>> >\n>> > about the microprojects I am not sure which page I should create or improve.\n>>\n>> Any idea about this? Also any idea about new microprojects would be nice.\n>\n> I think #leftoverbits is your best bet for micro-projects. Last year I\n> think we had interns actually hunt for them via the list archive. That's\n> a little unfriendly for total newcomers, I think, but it also does give\n> a chance to demonstrate some skills. Perhaps it would be help to create\n> a curated list of such bits.\n\nOk, I will see if I have time to create such a list.\n"},{"id":"357568","messageId":"20180906193130.GA28588@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD1nbv6=6JLnOCkmCcZjNOcDfOm4oH7pxHsYcddUYUxBPw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-09-06T19:31:30Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-06T19:31:34Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 11:51:49AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:\n\n> > Thanks. I signed us up as a community (making me the \"coordinator\" in\n> > their terminology). I think the procedure is a little different this\n> > year, and we actually propose projects to mentor through their system.\n> \n> Yeah, I think the https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/ is not actually necessary.\n\nI think it still may be helpful for explaining in further detail things\nlike #leftoverbits (though I see you put some of that in your project\ndescription).\n\n> > So anybody interested in mentoring should go here:\n> >\n> >   https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/git/\n> >\n> > (and you'll need to create a login if you don't have one from last\n> > year). You should be able to click through \"Submit a Project Proposal\",\n> > after which the fields are pretty self-explanatory.\n> \n> I did that for the \"Improve `git bisect`\" project. As the\n> \"coordinator\", you will need to approve that project.\n\nThanks. I approved it, though a few of the descriptions are a little\nfunny. For instance, the text says \"we use an issue tracker\", which then\nlinks to public-inbox. I assume this is because you filled in a field\nfor \"issue tracker\" and then the system generated the text. I don't know\nif there's a way go into more detail there.\n\n> I think the person who submits a project becomes some kind of primary\n> mentor for the project. So Dscho, if you want to be such a mentor for\n> one or both of the other projects on the Outreachy-17 page, please\n> submit the project(s) otherwise please tell me and I will submit them.\n> You are free of course to change things in these projects when you\n> submit them or to submit other completely different projects.\n\nYes, I think the point is make sure the mentors are invested in the\nindividual projects. I imagine a kind of \"oh, one of us will probably\nmentor it\" attitude has led to problems in other projects in the past.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"357569","messageId":"20180906193431.GB28588@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD3-djatPqoVGNGWNQkuJ84BboFMYrGSAEOQDygjJVcqeg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-09-06T19:34:32Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-06T19:34:35Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 11:58:16AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:\n\n> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:\n> > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 09:20:23AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:\n> >\n> >> >> Thanks. I think sooner is better for this (for you or anybody else who's\n> >> >> interested in mentoring). The application period opens on September\n> >> >> 10th, but I think the (still growing) list of projects is already being\n> >> >> looked at by potential candidates.\n> >>\n> >> Do you know where is this list? On\n> >> https://www.outreachy.org/apply/project-selection/ they say\n> >> \"Information about projects are unavailable until applications open\".\n> >\n> > This was the list I was looking at (scroll down below the timeline):\n> >\n> >   https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/\n> \n> Ok, so it's the list of \"communities\" not \"projects\" in Outreachy terms.\n\nYeah, sorry, when I said \"projects\" originally I meant what they call\n\"communities\". But it seems that yes, the communities information is\nbeing made public now, but the list of mentors/projects is not yet.\n\nBy the way, I've got funding from GitHub lined up, so we are good on\nthat front.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"357683","messageId":"CAP8UFD3y=p_w5scnB0dggqK7jb5x-2x=d4LUCXLVVGkRcAOcJg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"20180906193130.GA28588@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-09-08T08:57:46Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-08T08:57:49Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:31 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:\n> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 11:51:49AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:\n>\n>> Yeah, I think the https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/ is not actually necessary.\n>\n> I think it still may be helpful for explaining in further detail things\n> like #leftoverbits (though I see you put some of that in your project\n> description).\n\nYou mean in https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/ or somewhere else?\n\nIt is already described in https://git.github.io/SoC-2018-Microprojects/.\n\n>> I did that for the \"Improve `git bisect`\" project. As the\n>> \"coordinator\", you will need to approve that project.\n>\n> Thanks. I approved it, though a few of the descriptions are a little\n> funny. For instance, the text says \"we use an issue tracker\", which then\n> links to public-inbox. I assume this is because you filled in a field\n> for \"issue tracker\" and then the system generated the text.\n\nYeah, it was generated from fields that I filled in.\n\n> I don't know if there's a way go into more detail there.\n\nI don't think so, though we could perhaps improve our web pages.\n"},{"id":"357684","messageId":"CAP8UFD0w=MQkrJDy4VVZt1T7iFi2KUBtDzr3zssWHbiGcg-5Uw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"20180906193431.GB28588@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-09-08T08:59:06Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-08T08:59:09Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:\n>\n> By the way, I've got funding from GitHub lined up, so we are good on\n> that front.\n\nGreat, thanks!\n"},{"id":"357696","messageId":"20180908154053.GA32647@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49239","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD3y=p_w5scnB0dggqK7jb5x-2x=d4LUCXLVVGkRcAOcJg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-09-08T15:40:53Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-08T15:40:56Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Sat, Sep 08, 2018 at 10:57:46AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:\n\n> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:31 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:\n> > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 11:51:49AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:\n> >\n> >> Yeah, I think the https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/ is not actually necessary.\n> >\n> > I think it still may be helpful for explaining in further detail things\n> > like #leftoverbits (though I see you put some of that in your project\n> > description).\n> \n> You mean in https://git.github.io/Outreachy-17/ or somewhere else?\n> \n> It is already described in https://git.github.io/SoC-2018-Microprojects/.\n\nYeah, I meant it may still be useful to have an Outreachy page for our\ncommunity explaining community-specific procedures. I agree it's mostly\nredundant with what's on the GSoC page, but it might be easier on\napplicants to have a page tailored directly towards Outreachy. But I\nhaven't gone over the material as recently as you, so I'd leave that\ndecision to you.\n\n-Peff\n"}]}