The Apache Software Foundation
Community > Code
This page describes the ranking process The Apache Software Foundation uses to evaluate mentee proposals.
The ranking process makes sure the most promising applicants get a mentor with an ASF project. The goal is not to identify the “best” projects for the ASF, but the best mentees who have applied to the ASF.
Remember, mentoring is all about the mentee and open source as a whole. It is not about the mentors or their projects.
Any ASF committer can help with the ranking: all you need to do is register as a potential mentor (you don’t actually have to become a mentor).
The instructions below described ranking proposals using the Google Summer of Code application.
Scoring System ¶
We rank projects using this scoring system:
Pre-Selection Phase : a mentor does this when accepting to be mentor of a given proposal ¶
- if the proposal is for a project you will be mentoring and you feel the proposal looks good enough for you to commit your time to it, click the “I am willing to Mentor” button in Melange (the software that administers the Google Summer of Code).
Please only offer to mentor a single project unless you have discussed why you should mentor more than one on email@example.com first. We encourage multiple mentors per project, though.
Other community members are free to comment on proposals as they see fit. In the re-evaluation phase (see below) admins use comments provided by mentors and community members.
##Selection Phase : a mentor does this during ranking time
In this phase mentors evaluate each proposal. We do all scoring in the Google Docs spreadsheet shared on firstname.lastname@example.org. Add an explanation to every score, using the criteria below, to help admins in the later stages of evaluation. DO NOT ADD SCORES IN MELANGE! Use integer numbers only!
Please do not add scores outside these criteria.
Address any questions to the admins on email@example.com
Did the student demonstrate that they have the required skills to start the project and learn what’s needed along the way? And how happy are we with the results? (0-4 points)
How do we rate the quality of the student’s proposal, in terms of technical relevance, completeness, awareness of issues, and realistic planning (less copy and paste)? (0-4 points)
How does the mentor rate the student’s chances of success, based on an in-person (face-to-face, video, audio, IRC, email) interview? (0-3 points, or 0-1 if email interview only)
How do we rate the originality of the student’s contributions to the proposal? (0-2 points: 0 if mentor provides proposal, 1 if student builds proposal from suggested ideas, 2 if proposal is original idea from student)
Did the student work with the project community, on our public mailing lists, to create the proposal? (0-2 points)
Did the student explicitly indicate how much time they are going to dedicate to GSoC for the project’s duration, and mention any other committments that could conflict with the project (holidays, course work, etc.)? Are we happy with this commitment (it should be their major occupation during the summer)? (0-2 points)
Did the student respond quickly to mentor inquiries? (0-2 points)
Are you or your student affiliated in any way (e.g. share(d) the same employer or will do so in the foreseeable future, are you their adviser at university, personal relationships, etc.)? (yes/no)
Other community members are free to comment on proposals inside Melange as they see fit. However, DO NOT ADD A SCORE TO THE PROPOSAL. In the re-evaluation phase (see below) admins use comments provided by mentors and community members.
At the end of the selection phase proposals to be considered for support will have a score of between 0 and +19, and should only have scores from the assigned mentor and admins (at this stage admin scores are only corrections). The admins check in periodically during the selection phase to look for problems by scanning the scores (i.e. anything over +19 has an error).
At the end of this selection phase we know the minimum score a proposal must have in order to be selected (i.e. if we have 30 slots, projects with a score at or above the project ranked 30th will go forward to the next phase). Before progressing to the next phase, admins read all proposals above or near the minimum score and ensure that there are no errors in this phase of ranking.
Re-Evaluation : admins do this during or after selection phase ¶
In this phase admins evaluate all proposals above the required score and those that are just below it. We check those just below the required score to ensure that the scores have been equally assigned across all proposals (some mentors are more generous than others).
- Has the mentor fully engaged with the student during the writing of the proposal? (0-4 points)
- Does the mentor show an understanding of how to mentor a student? (0-4 points)
- Discretionary score: admins may use their experience and the comments of community members to mark a proposal up or down (-4 to +4).
- Admin discretionary points (-10 to +10 points, only used to break “deadlocks” across the cut-off point, see below).
The admins transfer the scores to Melange.
At the end of this phase there is a short window for the community to verify the admins’ work before the final selection is made.
What are we looking for in a good proposal? ¶
In general we much prefer new mentees to repeat mentees. The goal is to enable new people to learn about open source software development.
In past years we have seen some consistent patterns in high-quality proposals:
- Detailed proposal with realistic and measurable milestones
- Engagement with the project communication during proposal writing
- Willingness to engage with the ranking process (i.e. responding to requests for more info)
- Acknowledgment of weaknesses in existing skill set and a plan for addressing those weaknesses
Warning signs in a bad proposal ¶
- No engagement with project community
- Lack of understanding of what open source is and how it is developed
- Indication of external commitments (exams, job etc.)
- Previous failures within the mentor programme
What happens next? ¶
Towards the end of the ranking period Google announces how many slots the ASF has. Shortly after that we ask ASF committers to stop ranking, and the ASF GSoC admins adjust the rankings to ensure that the right number of projects are ranked above the cut-off line.
In this last stage we avoid adjusting community rankings; however, in past years there has been a cluster of students with equal rankings around the cut-off point. In this case the admins cast a final vote on those projects to ensure that Google can assign awards as appropriate.
For example, imagine that 7 is the number of points that causes the clustering, and we have the following projects ranked at 7:
Now imagine the cut-off point for selection is currently at the third position (C).
The admins need to look at these projects and ensure they are ordered in the webapp to make the most appropriate appear at the top of the list. This ensures that they are most likely to receive a slot. So we may end up with:
Unfortunately this process needs to happen very quickly and there is no time for community discussion around these points. Therefore it is important that mentors and mentees provide as much information in the previous ranking stages as possible.
The problem becomes a little more complicated when we remember that the cut-off point may move as well, so Google may give us one extra slot. So we need to ensure that all rank-7 projects are correctly ordered, not just the best.
The process of breaking clusters ¶
Admins work through all applications, adding a +8 to all those ranked above the cut off score. This has the effect of increasing the “space” we have to work with in re-ranking the clustered projects.
Admins then work through all the clustered applications, adding scores as defined above (with a comment justifying the ranking).
If there is still a cluster of projects around the cut-off point, the lead admin looks at the mentors and projects involved. If a project/mentor already has a higher scored application, the lead admin reduces the score for this one (i.e. to try to spread the love).
It’s not practical to ask the community to comment at this point as we are on a tight deadline. We ask that the community trust the assigned admins.
Resolve conflicts ¶
Inevitably there will be one or two students who have been accepted in multiple organizations. We resolve these conflicts during an IRC meeting with Google admins during the final hours of ranking. In these cases the admins attempt to contact mentors and students; but we sometimes have to make a judgment call on how to best resolve such conflicts, as things happen quite fast during this meeting.