Re: Available slots

[olafBuddenhagen]

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 09:32:02PM +0400, Kirill Kononenko wrote:

> I don't get this point of marking these proposals as ineligible. If
> the student does not want to work with us - we can simply take another
> top application later. There is no sense to mark these proposal
> ineligible. It might become that the student does not get accepted by
> any project later even at the end. So I suggest as someone who has
> already been both a Google Summer of Code student, and Google Summer
> of Code mentor, to not mark such proposals as ineligible, but give a
> student selected by two mentoring organization, at the end, to select
> him of her self. And don't forget that no one really knows how many
> slots we really get at the end, and other mentoring organization too,
> they also don't know how many slots they will get. Also I want to let
> you know that Matthias-Christian has already started to work on his
> project. So I see no sense to mark his proposal as ineligible. Unless
> I get a confirmation from Matthias-Chrisitian, that he does not want
> to work with us, I see no reason to mark his proposal as ineligible.
> So I make it "eligible" again at this time.

I agree that marking "ineligible" is not the right method. The normal
approach is scoring down and/or unassigning the mentor.

Note though that this scoring down/unassigning *has* to be done by the
organisation who gives the student up. The student can't make the
selection himself. The student can be included in the discussion, but
ultimately the yielding organisation has to make sure he is no longer
among the top-ranked proposals, or the conflict won't be resolved. The
duplicate resolution meeting is the very latest occasion to do this --
but if the situation is clear beforehand, it should be done earlier.

Of course, if the other organisation decides that they don't want the
student after all, they should indicate this in time, so the student can
be ranked up again...

-antrik-