Hi Jeffery,
Am 03.03.2016 um 06:03 schrieb jeffery shivers:
> Dear LilyPond team,
>
> I'd like to apply for GSoC to contribute to ScholarLY as
> a student with Urs Liska.
This is great news!
>
> I've been a user of LilyPond and LaTeX for a while now,
> and am intrigued by the ScholarLY/openLilyLib project.
> I have less familiar, but basic, understandings of Python
> and Scheme, from recreational practice.
I think Python is really optional with this project, but you'd have to
get more familiar with Scheme along the way, even when it's valid to
give a certain bias to the LaTeX side.
>
> I have an open calendar between late April and late
> August (minus two weeks in early August for the
> Darmstadt Summer Courses), and would like to commit
> my summer to pursuing any aspect(s) of the project that
> would advance its stability/usefulness.
>
> I am a composer and graduate student (transitioning
> from MA to PhD), so my interest in the project is as a
> user who directly benefits from this.
>
> If you could direct my next steps toward creating a
> proposal and applying, I'd be grateful.
As far as I can see the basic outline is the following::
* Until March 13 we can discuss a project and application outline. I
will be available for discussing anything relating to the content of
ScholarLY and the GSoC project. But I'm not there to do the work for
you (this disclaimer is more directed towards myself than you ;-) )
* Then you submit your application to Google.
* I *think* (but there seems to be something missing on
https://developers.google.com/open-source/gsoc/timeline) that after
that Google first evaluates the application and then passes the
successful applicants to the mentoring organization. If we then
should happen to have more accepted applications than slots we would
have to discuss that among the developers.
I suggest that we keep this thread on the list for a little while so
others may comment as well. And if nothing speaks against it we should
continue discussing this in private. Maybe you can prepare a kind of
"statement" telling me how you use ScholarLY and how and where *you*
would like it to be improved/extended.
The nice thing about this as a GSoC project is that there are many items
we can put on the list that may or may not be achieved without
disturbing the usefulness of the project. However, I think there is one
rather strict requirement: At the end we should have a robust LaTeX
package to make use of the annotations.
Best wishes
Urs
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Jeffery
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> lilypond-devel@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
