Hi, we've had the bias debate before - the end of the story was that while some people thought it might look like people in the esug board could be biased, it showed most people who joined the discussion don't bother. And if I remember the thing why the discussion was started back then was not done, so I guess we can forget about that for now. Just one comment: I cannot read from Janko's mail that he thinks esug didn't do a good job of makin gsoc a reality. I was never involved, so I cannot tell if that is thanks to Janko's help or if it was an avhievement of the esug board. In the end, it probably doesnt even matter: the outcome was positive. Re: too much pharo. Is the pharo community to blame for the fact that it generates most interest? I personally would like to see more cross-smalltalk ideas in gsoc, but not having enough time and courage to act as a mentor, who am I to complain? Again, I didn't read Jankos comments as an accusation, more like the attempt to motivate people in other dialects to come out and play. I think Janko and the people who worked with him the last years to make things happen have done a great job and I am happy we've had Smalltalk projects happen, even if I personally have not used any of the contributions. For some, I cant even tell if they went anywhere. For those, fighting is useless, and for the others not worth it: they're open source and can be ported to any dialect. So it would be a pity if we lost Janko's drive and even more if we couldn't be part of gsoc this year due to this debate. I also think a new organization is way too much work and cannot see any problems with esug being the umbrella for Smalltalk projects in gsoc. The worst thing that could happen is another broken link to ancient and outdated Smalltalk information. We've had enough of that. Esug, as any other organization, may not be perfect, but it's the best we have. If it's about domain names, we sure will find sponsors to rent a few smalltalk names and redirect them - althiugh I think promoting what we have a bit more would help more than that. just my 2 cents, Joachim Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> schrieb: >The Squeak Oversight Board would like to see GSoC projects continue >under the European Smalltalk User Group. > >The Squeak community plans to present several projects this year. > >frank > >On 8 February 2014 09:50, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote: >> Dear community >> >> On the smalltalk-gsoc-mentors@googlegroups.com janko is kind of declaring >> that ESUG was not doing a good job managing >> GSOC. We feel insulted and we are quite concerned by that fact. Personally >> if students would not be involved I would vote that ESUG does not have >> anything to do with GSOC. Because it costs us money, time and stress. Note >> in addition that we never interferred with the choice or anything. >> >> I will ask the ESUG board to decide because we cannot do the job, spend >> time, money and be treated like that. >> Sorry! We are sad but this is like that. >> >> Then we do not like the kind of mails that Janko is sending us about the >> fact that ESUG is biased towards Pharo. >> Where are the research teams and teachers? Of course: the mails of janko >> are just so nice. I let you judge. >> >> It is particularly fun since this year we (the pharo board) decided not to >> organise a Pharo conference to avoid competing with ESUG. >> >> About motivations for my proposal: >> >> 1. 'Smalltalk' is more recognizable name on first spot that 'ESUG' . And >> this matters when a student looks at around 150 GSoC organizations to >> choose, which one to check and try. See last year list of orgs. >> >> 2. ESUG is currently regarded by many as too biased towards Pharo. Let we >> avoid starting debating is this is true or not. Making our org more >> independent will I hope remove any remaining doubt about that. >> >> >> >> I feel shocked and insulted but I take it easy, having success make you as >> easy target for jaleous people. This is strange that >> some people would prefer to have a non existing/moving open-source >> smalltalk. May be the losers theory. >> >> I added the answer of marcus below (because marcus usually is much calmer >> than me) so that Janko succeeded to get marcus reacting like that is a nice >> proof in itself. >> >> Seriously Smalltalk is in a so good shape in presence of lua, Javascript, >> ruby and python, clojure that we should fight. >> >> Excellent idea thank for this nice initiative. >> >> Stef >> >> >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Janko Mivšek <janko.mivsek@gmail.com> >> Subject: [gsoc-mentors] Running under 'Smalltalk' org. name >> Date: 8 Feb 2014 08:46:18 GMT+1 >> To: smalltalk-gsoc-mentors@googlegroups.com >> Reply-To: smalltalk-gsoc-mentors@googlegroups.com >> >> Dear mentors, >> >> I propose that we run this year GSoC simply under 'Smalltalk' name. >> Mentoring organization will be us mentors of past and current GSoCs, as the >> name 'mentoring organization' implies anyway. Such organization therefore >> doesn't need to be some kind of legal entity. >> >> Because I need to open a new website and we have only one week to deadline, >> decision needs to be done soon. >> >> Best regards >> Janko >> >> --- >> Janko Mivšek >> Smalltalk GSoC Admin Team >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Smalltalk GSoC mentors" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to smalltalk-gsoc-mentors+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> >> >> Of course you need it: I filled out quite some paperwork for Google. ESUG is >> an official Google supplier, for that I filled american tax forms and so on. >> >> Without an organisation that will be very difficult. How do yu receive money >> for the flight if someone goes to the meeting in the fall? >> >> One of the reasons why the Smalltalk GSOC was accepted was I think that it >> was the same organisation that is already in the books of google. >> >> And I do not see why to change that: ESUG did a good job, we even lost money >> (that is, we spend more money on additional Summer of Code slots >> than got in with the money from google). >> We payed all additional expenses of the people going to the Summit: Google >> only pays the flight and hotel. Everyhting else not (e.g. going from the >> airpot >> to the hotel). >> >> >> What we need to discuss this year is if additional slots make sense: We had >> last year the fast that >> a) it was very expensive for ESUG >> b) even then, we got complaints that it was unfair that we did not pay the >> same as google >> c) that it was very extremely unfair that the student could not put “Google >> Summer of Code” on the CV. >> >> The last is the Killer: money from ESUG is just money. GSoC is more. So we >> ask if it is really worth to spend the money >> if even the students are not happy about it. >> >> And if your motivation behind is that this way you think it will be easier >> to enable “Quotas” for different Smalltalks: I think this is a dumb idea. >> >> Yes, Pharo is very active. So could every other Smalltalk be, too. They just >> need to do it. If they do not, it is not my duty to limit >> my activity for “Fairness”. Limiting the activity level of those who do to >> be more “in line” with what those do who do nothing is just >> *insane*. It’s a description of death itself. >> >> Marcus >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Esug-list mailing list >> Esug-list@lists.esug.org >> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org >> > >_______________________________________________ >Esug-list mailing list >Esug-list@lists.esug.org >http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org