Re: Website questions: GSoC

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 12.12.2013 16:51, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Am 12.12.2013 16:39, schrieb Paul Morris:
>>>> Urs Liska wrote
>>>>> Am 12.12.2013 14:10, schrieb Mike Solomon:
>>>>>> On Dec 12, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Urs Liska &lt;
>>>>> ul@
>>>>> &gt; wrote:
>>>>>>> The page "GSoC 2012" is obviously outdated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What should be done with it?
>>>> What about just changing it to "GSoC" (dropping the "2012") and make it a
>>>> general GSoC page.  Assuming we're still interested in attracting future
>>>> "GSoCoders," having this page shows our interest, our past participation,
>>>> and some examples of what future projects might look like.
>>> Sounds good.
>>> Could be made into sth like: "These are some ideas. Maybe you're
>>> interested in such a project?"
>>> What would be the basic requirement to apply for/participate in a
>>> future GSoC?
>>>
>>>> Janek's GSoC work can legitimately be presented in a positive light: "he
>>>> learned a lot, the task turned out to be more involved than was first
>>>> thought, but he is still working on finishing it and is still actively
>>>> contributing to the project in other ways as well" etc.
>>> If we turn it into a generic GSoC page that's certainly possible.
>> I'd let the topic of the last GSoC rest until there are more tangible
>> followup results.
>>
> What do you exactly mean by that? Leaving the page as it is currently?
> Or removing the page completely?
> I can't tell what you suggest.

I suggest to let the topic of the _last_ GSoC rest until there are more
tangible results.  That concerns the "Janek's GSoC work can legitimately
be presented in a positive light" angle.

That does neither mean leaving the page as it is currently, nor removing
it completely.  It just means that we should not try selling something
as a success until we have more to show for it.

-- 
David Kastrup