[GSoC] Bio JavaScript/Node.js idea (bionode)

Tue Mar 4 15:23:51 UTC 2014

Enthusiasm is great, but enthusiasm without any plan and foresight is by no
means guaranteed to still result in a positive outcome.

Taking on as many project ideas as there are enthusiastic people behind has
its own drawbacks, which are neither obvious at first nor harmless. We took
this approach in the past at PhyloSoC. However, if you have far more
project ideas with students applying to them than you have any reasonable
chance of getting slots awarded, stiff competition between project ideas
invariably leads to student proposals being ranked in part due to the
merits of the *project idea*. The result of this is that you have students
applying based on project ideas that never really had the same chance of
scoring high as others; students are on a playing field that isn't level. I
find this fundamentally unfair to the students - students don't have many
chances at accepted proposals, most students only apply for one. There's
nothing fair if that one project idea they applied to happens to be not at
the same start position as all others.

Being all inclusive is great, but certain programs benefit more from focus
on objectives, and I would argue GSoC is one of those. Eric stated well
what he wants the objectives to be for the OBF participation. Accepting
everyone who is enthusiastic strikes me as neither necessary nor conducive
to achieving them. And what will look good to Google is not a lively list
of projects but student satisfaction.

  -hilmar

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Pjotr Prins <pjotr2014 at thebird.nl> wrote:

> I agree with the intent and reasoning.
>
> One word of caution, however, it is easier to discourage people than
> to encourage them. My most important suggestion is to try and say YES
> more often. We can't have enough project proposals - the actual
> application process will leave us with the ones we really want
> (student, mentor and/or content-wise). If members of the community
> (that community remember) is enthousiastic about an idea I think we
> ought to embrace it as an org. People come to OBF/GSoC for a reason.
> So, I'd turn that argument around.
>
> A lively list of projects will look good with Google too. The key
> thing is enthusiasm. The next key thing is talent. Being open may
> surprise us. Let us be surprised.
>
> Pj.
>
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 08:31:02PM -0500, Hilmar Lapp wrote:
> > Well said, Chris.  -hilmar
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Fields, Christopher J <
> > cjfields at illinois.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Pjotr, Peter,
> > >
> > > In the end I think this has to be a decision that Eric and Raoul make,
> as
> > > they are running the show.  We wouldn't have any GSoC 2014 w/o their
> hard
> > > work.  My feeling is, in the end, openly discussing these will suss
> out the
> > > ones that seem to fit best overall.
> > >
> > > My 2c, if it's worth anything: I tend to agree with Pjotr, in that we
> > > should not limit ourselves to the various Bio*.  If anything, what I
> > > personally would like to see at the end of the day is a very good set
> of
> > > projects overall that we can pick from.
> > >
> > > However, I also think a balance needs to be struck, and that whatever
> we
> > > accept has to (in the end) benefit OBF.  That, to me, is the purpose of
> > > GSoC.  If it means we can get a new Bio* started up or we can (even
> > > tangentially) add functionality to one of the Bio* projects, all the
> > > better.  But I do think this has to feed back to OBF somehow.
> > >
> > > The reality is, we simply can't take every project from other related
> but
> > > non-accepted orgs.  In some instances, other accepted orgs might
> simply be
> > > a better fit, such as BioJS.  It doesn't mean we won't accept
> > > Javascript-based projects, but all alternatives need to be explored
> > > (particularly when there are a finite # of slots for a lot of
> projects).
> > >
> > > chris
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mar 3, 2014, at 5:56 AM, Pjotr Prins <pjotr2014 at thebird.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > BioJS is browser oriented. It may or may not fit there. See also
> > > > earlier E-mails on this ML by Chris and myself (Feb 27th).
> > > >
> > > > Even so, can we please be open to new project ideas and get rid of
> the
> > > > discriminatory programming language notion?  The bioinformatics
> > > > community is growing rapidly. Way faster than before. We should cater
> > > > for community needs as is represented by project ideas coming out of
> > > > the community.
> > > >
> > > > I think, as long as the project is about bioinformatics and FOSS, it
> > > > will fit GSoC/OBF.  We should only filter on the quality of students
> > > > and mentors.
> > > >
> > > > Note also that Yannick is a respected member of BioRuby.
> > > >
> > > > Pj.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:39:04AM +0000, Peter Cock wrote:
> > > >> Devil's advocate: Would this not be a better match to BioJavaScript
> > > >> which was accepted as a GSoC organisation in its own right? What
> > > >> do they think?
> > > >>
> > > >> http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/org2/google/gsoc2014/biojs
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >>
> > > >> Peter
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > GSoC mailing list
> > > > GSoC at lists.open-bio.org
> > > > http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/gsoc
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > GSoC mailing list
> > > GSoC at lists.open-bio.org
> > > http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/gsoc
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Hilmar Lapp -:- lappland.io
> > _______________________________________________
> > GSoC mailing list
> > GSoC at lists.open-bio.org
> > http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/gsoc
>

-- 
Hilmar Lapp -:- lappland.io