Why I'm I not eligible to be mentor for GCI-2017?

Continuing the discussion from GCI 2017 - Official Mentor Invite:

This year some standards were set for mentors to meet before they can be added as mentors on the Google Code-in site. If you haven’t read the official mentor invite thread then please do. It is stated there that, potential mentors must meet any one of the following criteria.

  1. Former GCI Winner, Finalist or Mentor (not restricted to OpenMRS)
  2. Former GSoC Student or Mentor (not restricted to OpenMRS)
  3. Experienced/Active/Long term members involved with OpenMRS.

I feel your pain if you don’t meet any of the criteria and wished to mentor. I originally wished for it to be very open to anyone that wants to mentor irrespective of your time with OpenMRS. But that was a mistake. That meant I was not learning from history. We want mentors that will be capable of making good judgements. The kind of mentors we recruit will go a long way to affect the out come of the contest and even winners. Last year I saw a task approved by some mentors that didn’t meet up with what was rejected by other experienced mentors. That’s unfair to the students because then their success will depend on which mentor is reviewing their task. That is why the criteria was set. This way we make sure students get the same treatment whether harsh or smooth. I know some mentors will still have a very high standard compared to others especially with tasks that require subjective arguments. But this will be minimized with the criteria set above.

Anyone is welcome to help students on the gci channel and even review their work on GitHub if they want. But we are limiting acceptance of task on the site only to mentors that meet the criteria above. If you are interested in mentoring and does not meet that criteria, please we encourage you to join the gci chat on telegram and help students and review their work and provide feedback. We will surely take note of this.

Thanks, Larry and @bholagabbar OpenMRS GCI Admins


Very useful information! Thanks @ivange94 for sharing. :slight_smile:

1 Like