Hi, On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 02:16:20AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:09:31AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > However, I didn't propose this so far, as tschwinge seems to have a > > perfectly opposite opinion than me on what are suitable tasks and > > what aren't. > > Huh, what's that? > > In fact, what I told you was that I wouldn't know how to wrap what you > suggested into a concise wording for a GSoC task, so that someone who > isn't familiar with all those Hurd details would know what this task > was about. I then asked you to come up with such a wording to then > install that task, but, so far, you didn't respond to that plea and > instead now accuse me to not consider your ideas worthwhile? This wasn't meant to be an accusation. Sorry if I made it sound like one. The point is that various comments you made on my proposal as well as others, made me conclude that you have totally different opinions about what is appropriate for a SoC task. As for that other proposal, your intial comment sounded very much like you do not consider it a suitable task at all; when I asked (on IRC) why you think so, you suggested I write something up, but didn't follow up on my questions. I'm still not sure what you really want, when talking about "concise wording". I don't know how the proposals are presented to the students. When we gathered ideas for GGI, we had a single sentence/wordgroup as title for each task, and one or more paragraphs explaining it: Introducing the relevant concepts, pointing out what is missing or what could be improved, and explaining what the student is supposed to do specifically. Anyways, I guess it's too late for this year anyways. Maybe next year. (Yeah, my fault -- I should have made the proposal much earlier.) -antrik- _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
