Ruby Summer of Code
rubysoc.org
rubysoc.org
Also, from the questions for students they list there, it seems like they might get some pretty bad outcomes:
>Why do you use Ruby and/or Rails? How would you like to see them improve?
Outline the specific project you're proposing.
Why is this important to the Ruby and/or Rails communities at large? Why is this important to you?
List a clear set of goals/milestones you'll hit during the summer, along with a rough timeline. Be specific about your deliverables.
What are the "unknowns" in this project for you? What kind of pitfalls could you run into?
How will you measure progress? How will you handle falling behind?
To liken it to startups/YC, they're asking a lot about the idea, but not at all about "the team" (the applicant). Anyone can say "I'm going to make something awesome" even if they aren't very good at writing Ruby and will almost certainly not do well.
Sure, they don't give you money unless you hit milestones, but they could experience plenty of projects that technically do what they should but are so badly written that they're certain to go nowhere.
That said, I'm really excited for this both as a potential participant and as a Rubyist who would love to see some cool new projects come of it.
Edit: They also should make it a bit more clear what kinds of projects they want. Just things that are directly useful to ruby programmers (libraries, Rails plugins, etc)? Cool tools that are useful to developers in general (something like http://hurl.it/)? Any piece of software that's useful to the world and written in Ruby (like some good website written in Rails)? My guess is the first 2 only, but that's just a guess.
As for suggestions for projects, we're working on them, but as with GSoC, the really good ideas will likely come from the student applicants.
CREATE AND RELEASE OPEN SOURCE CODE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL
Paying people to be motivated to bother to work on open source code seems odd. If someone comes along with a "I really want to do X but I need $Y to live" request (as Gregory Brown did a couple years back - http://rubymendicant.wikidot.com/proposal) that's cool, because the request has come from an intrinsic motivation and you can choose to donate based on the utility of the work that will be done (and Greg did a great job on Prawn, by the way).
With a GSOC-like program, there's a pitching process by students who are being provided an extrinsic motivation of $5000. Yet, this extrinsic motivator does not realistically reflect the typical motivations for contributing to open source projects. The money provides an American Idol-esque motivation of "try this out to win fame/money" rather than encouraging those who are already trying hard.
INSPIRE YOUNG DEVELOPERS TO BEGIN PARTICIPATING IN OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Is offering a (monetary) reward a good way to get someone with no experience to start doing something? Perhaps, but in something like open source, does it make sense to wave money at people who aren't already intrinsically attracted towards the cause? It feels like paying your kids to do housework to me.
Open source is tough enough to need serious intrinsic motivation from its participants (even if you're ultimately doing it for "fame" or to get a job). Are these new people going to stick around when there's no easy money? Looking at past GSOCs, many participants appear to be folks who were already contributing to open source development (if in a small way) but who happened to get lucky with a nice stipend to do something they were already motivated to do. That seems against the spirit of the program.
PROVIDE STUDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO WORK RELATED TO THEIR ACADEMIC PURSUITS DURING THE SUMMER (THINK "FLIP BITS, NOT BURGERS")
Limiting the program to the "young" and/or "students" also strikes me as odd. Google has this educationally elitist air about it at the best of times. Is the average software engineering student flipping burgers all summer nowadays? I suspect the people flipping burgers are those who made bad decisions at a younger age and are now stuck in that world.
Encouraging disadvantaged developers who aren't academically active through a program like GSOC would be awesome, because some real chances to turn people's lives around would appear rather than saving some university students from the real world. Help people who flip burgers for pocket money or help people who are stuck flipping burgers all year too?
GIVE STUDENTS MORE EXPOSURE TO REAL-WORLD SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS (E.G., DISTRIBUTED DEVELOPMENT, SOFTWARE LICENSING QUESTIONS, MAILING-LIST ETIQUETTE)
Again, they need to be paid to learn this stuff? If they're not familiar with these concepts and they're taking software engineering classes, we need a campaign to fix the syllabi.
All that said, I know the people behind this campaign and that they mean all the best, and I hope some students get some good value from it. Good luck.
Do you also feel the same way about Greg Brown's Ruby Mendicant project? I'd say even though we gave him seemingly antithetical extrinsic motivators the greater good was better served by having him work full-time on it.
The second paragraph of my comment explicitly referenced that very project :-) He had a great idea and put his neck on the line to appeal for money for it. I think of GSOC as more like a lottery grant. People know the money's there so they invent reasons to apply for it.
That said, students are not the only demographic group who can not put "full time" into open source. I'd say the majority of open source contributors are doing it in their spare time (of which they have no more than the average student).
Sure, and you italicized "also" stressing that it's not only students that have this problem. While I have reservations about financially motivating people, the program would smell nicer if it didn't arbitrarily limit itself to a demographic.
Why discriminate between a 20 year old taking marine biology and a 20 year old stuck working all year at a convenience store if they have the same desire to code on the side? Are "students" inherently "better" than other people and more deserving of programs like GSOC?
The students who really deserve our respect are those who don't sit on their butts playing WoW or watching TV for hours every day and are making time to invest in their futures by contributing to open source. There are a lot out there and they're what we need more of.
If someone has an existing project it seems likely they will look after it over time. They've already shown the interest and initiative, so give them a boost.
If someone needs to get funded by RubyCentral to hack on something, what happens when summer ends and the money is gone? Who takes care of the code then?
I also do not question the motives or integrity of the people behind this, and like you I don't care for the emphasis on students.
I don't care so much that they get paid; hell, I wish people would pay me for doing open source software. I don't think it will alter any future motivations of anyone.
But it may be entirely possible to achieve the desired results without the pay out, and archive other useful goals with that money.
Now, it's easy to harp and suggest all sorts of imagined plans, while RSOC as it stands is real. So big props for making this happen.
I think, though, that some separation of project acceptance and funding for expenses would have been useful. E.g., first have people (really should be open to anyone) pitch their project. Then, if accepted, they can argue for financial support, if they can show some documented need.
Yeah, it's more work, and maybe the sort of thing that makes the difference between a nice sounding plan and a real program. But I agree that waving the $$ up front might be the wrong incentive.
I might not be considered to have "need." I'd live in my parents' house if I were to do this. I have to pay a good portion of my Stanford tuition somehow or another, but I could see you determing that that's not "need." (And if it is need, then >95% of your applicants will have at last $5k of tuition to pay for the year, so everyone will have need.)
Regardless of whether I "need" the money, spending an entire summer hacking full-time has some serious opportunity cost. I could get a real job (and make >$5k). I could hang out with my friends every day.
Do you really expect college students, most of whom have little money, to line up to forgo ~$10k of income (roughly the amount you can make at a programming internship, varying wildly of course) so they can do an open source project?
Sure, it would probably be more fun; it would be have completely flexible hours; you might not end up quite having to work full-time on it. But still. I'm a lot more likely to do it if I at least get a good portion of the compensation I could get from working.
And even if you do find people to do it, the quality of people will be a lot worse. For the most part, you'll get the people who don't have an opportunity cost of $10k because they're not good enough at programming to land a good job over the summer. So you'd probably just end up wasting a lot of the mentors' time because you'd have to accept lower-quality people. The money helps you be selective and hopefully get some truly high quality projects out of it.
People should go where they can get the most overall value. Getting $10K for an in-the-flesh internship at a development shop is easily better value than $5K from the GSOC program for most people.
People who are good for open source are attracted to it naturally. They care about more than money. That's my whole point really.. that the best people in open source aren't motivated by cash, so why attract people who are?
There's lots of college students that really need to bring in some money over the summer so they can afford their tuition. Plenty are already taking out loans as it is.
Think of it like the YC money--it's not all that much, lots of the companies don't really need it, it generally isn't the main attraction, but some great people absolutely need it to participate, so giving it ensures that no one will have to turn the opportunity down because of money
Again, they need to be paid to learn this stuff?
Yes. You could think of it as sort of an internship. Most colleges do not cover the sort of stuff you need in the real world -- I know mine doesn't, so GSoC was invaluable for me.
(disclosure: I was a GSoC student in 2008)
They're not paying people to be motivated to bother. They're paying people to work. Therefore they "create and release open source doe for the benefit of all". Done. Tick.
"in something like open source, does it make sense to wave money at people who aren't already intrinsically attracted towards the cause?
what cause? open source is not about charity.
"If they're not familiar with these concepts and they're taking software engineering classes".
Concepts are one thing "exposure to real-world" is totally different.
"Open source" is commonly considered a "movement" or philosophy. While open source can be as simple as the process of merely releasing your code, the term typically refers to the more philosophical angle.
People who contribute to open source and end up getting paid to do that are one thing. People who only start to get involved with open source because they see a reward being waved about are quite another.
I'm for anything that helps students learn. Google sponsorship means very little to me when it comes to that.
I'm not inside of the decision loop, but this is because of a perception that Google's SOC administrators didn't want to work with Ruby Central over the last two years.
I do not think that this perception is correct, but Ruby Central was not provided a mentorship spot last year and chose not to apply for a mentorship spot this year.
This is a Ruby Central initiative.
Yeah, I know: Not sexy.
Still, stuff like that would have greater benefit to the various Ruby communities than yet another Rails plugin.
Obviously, this is not just about maintenance, but these are ideas; you can also look for things that haven't yet been addressed and propose those.
Based on my experience as a GSOC mentor, though, I think that maintenance and enhancement projects (adding new features to existing projects) are more successful in the end than greenfield projects.
Hell, 20-year-old me would've jumped at it, for the money and the fame. Actually, 20-year-old me was probably getting high in an alley, but that's a story for another day.