DEV Community

Cover image for GSoC with CHAOSS: First two weeks!

GSoC with CHAOSS: First two weeks!

Aastha Bist
I'm exploring the world of computers, step by step.
Updated on ・2 min read

Hello reader!

This is going to be a biweekly work report of my work in first two weeks of Google Summer of Code with CHAOSS.

Now onto the report...

These two weeks focused on more of CHAOSS Badging content related to reviewers, and later came back to applicants.

Week two [June 8 - June 15]

Event Review Checklist and Applicant questions

Having built the basics of the criteria for Event Reviews, I started working on a checklist which would work out for events.

The initial point for these questions was earlier PR templates. Here are some pointers I used for reframing everything:

What the applicant questions have to be about?

  • Asking for relevant and necessary links which direct reviewers to the resources they can look into to evaluate a CHAOSS Badging application
  • Asking for previous work done by the applicant (Event organiser / Project maintainer) or others to make the Project/Event space more inclusive.

What reviewer questions have to be about?

  • Checking if the links for all necessary document are already in place
  • Quantitative assessments [bunch of checkboxes] about what the application fulfills, and qualitative feedback about what could be improved.

Associated links:

Week one [June 1 - June 7]

Project checklist, Event criteria and reading back and forth through things

For the CHAOSS Badging process, there are going to be at least five D&I metric deliverables which will need to be met for each Project review. To keep track of this information and the milestones an application will need to clear in order to be assigned a suitable badge, the concept (and content) of a Review Checklist is used.

The inspiration for this comes from Journal of Open Source Software reviews (more about their checklists here). These checklists can be built in a way that would determine application eligibility, the path a review will take and what deliverables will be met at the same time.

Focusing on the deliverables, and working over questions asked to applicants on PR templates, I split out each deliverable under the review checklist in two parts: quantitative and qualitative.

As of now quantitative questions can be answered either as a yes or no, while qualitative questions are more about bringing what a reviewer thinks about the application (and what more it requires) in front of an Applicant.

Second part, Event Criteria is more about how events will be evaluated. Since all event related metrics won't be applicable in all cases, we thought dividing them up in different, progressive sections would make sense for Event Reviews. Later, during the weekly meeting, Matt assigned different scales to each criteria.

Associated links:
Project Checklist -
WIP Event Criteria -

Thanks for reading! You can also check out my community bonding report which is live here.

Discussion (0)