On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Yaron Koren <yaron(a)wikiworks.com> wrote:
Hi,
I hit across this idea in the recent GSoC Mentors summit, and in the
discussion with Srishti and Sumit on the reducing
usability and scope of
GSoC/Outreachy projects[1] among the years.
*The problem*
Students show up one or two weeks before GSoC or Outreachy, and propose a
solution to existing ideas, and often end up completing it and leaving the
project. Due to this, there is a decline in student-proposed ideas as well,
given 1-2 weeks is not enough to understand Wikimedia from any direction.
I didn't really understand this. You seem to be talking about some or all
of the following issues:
1) Fewer students doing projects for the Wikimedia Foundation as part of
the Google Summer of Code and, I guess, Outreachy, than in previous
years - 2013
being the high point.
2) Students doing projects that are less useful than in previous years.
3) Students not staying with the Wikimedia/MediaWiki after the conclusion
of their project.
4) Students doing projects proposed by existing MediaWiki developers,
rather than projects they proposed themselves.
I see these as four unrelated issues, and actually I see only two of them
as real issues: #2 I don't think is true (though I'm not sure if that's
what you meant by "usability"), while #4 I don't see as an issue at all.
Personally, I think only projects proposed by potential mentors should be
considered at all, and that the documentation should state that clearly.
I'm not aware of any GSoC projects where the student came up with the idea
on their own and then executed on it successfully - with the exception of
projects where the student is an established MediaWiki developer who
happens to currently be in college, but that's obviously a special case.
It's just not reasonable to expect that someone from outside the
WMF/MediaWiki community would be able to come up with a project that (a)
makes sense, (b) fits within the current development roadmap, and (c) is of
the right scope for a GSoC/Outreachy project.
More generally, I don't think there's anything less rewarding about doing a
project that someone else came up with. In software development, as in most
things, the difficult part - and the most rewarding part - is the
execution, not the original idea. (There are various inspirational quotes
to this effect.)
That leaves #1 and #3 - fewer students participating, fewer students
staying on afterwards. I think #1 is just a function of fewer potential
mentors getting involved. Retaining students, on the other hand, is a real
problem. I can think of various ways to try to improve this, though
creating a new outreach/funding program seems extreme - it would take a lot
of work, and you would presumably run into the same problem of a limited
number of mentors. If there's money to pay for these kinds of things, why
not just put more money into, say, hiring more developers from out of the
GSoC pool? It's one idea.
-Yaron
I actually disagree somewhat - I think it can be very rewarding to fix
a problem that you yourself have, as opposed to fixing somebody else's
problem. This is a traditional ideology about open source - that it is
all about scratching your own itch.
Although arguably most gsoc students coming up with their own projects
aren't actually scratching their own itch but desperately trying to
come up with an idea. However, if someone happens to be a preexisting
user of MediaWiki, and finds something they find super annoying, I
think that can make for a very good project.
As for #2 - I think in recent years there has been more effort to make
sure projects are scoped appropriately. This makes it more likely for
projects to be finished, at the expense of making the projects perhaps
less "useful" than in older years. I think choosing the lower risk
lower reward path is entirely appropriate for a program like gsoc, so
I don't think this is a bad thing.
As for users sticking around - I think the communication around gsoc
has shifted from "Here's some money so you can work on MediaWiki
without starving to death" to "Here's a little money and a job so you
can put something cool on your resume". If students are being
attracted to the program principally to have something on their resume
or for the money (To be clear, I'm not saying there is anything wrong
with that), its not surprising that they leave afterwards when the
money goes away. If we want to attract people in the long term, we
should probably come up with a better carrot.
--
bawolff