# Project ideas for GSoC **URL:** \ **Category:** Feature\ **Created:** [March 10, 2018, 10:46am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/project-ideas-for-gsoc/82668 "2018-03-10T10:46:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 7
**Author:** ![erlend\_sh](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/erlend_sh/32/119475_2.png) [@erlend\_sh](https://meta.discourse.org/u/erlend_sh)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2018, 1:21am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/project-ideas-for-gsoc/82668/7 "2018-03-12T01:21:06Z")
> [@david](#): > > Why is this? Is the application process for an organisation particularly time consuming compared to outreachy/RGSOC? Not really. I’d say the main problem with GSoC is the uncertainty of it. Project acceptance is very much out of our control, and the reasons for rejection are not entirely clear. _If_ we get accepted for GSoC, we suddenly have an extra 2-4 mentor positions to fill. Outreachy is largely under our control because we are the ones paying the intern stipend. RGSoC is technically out of our hands, but as a major Rails project with a longstanding relationship with them we can be fairly certain that we’ll get a spot every year. > [@david](#): > > I certainly enjoyed being part of GSOC last year, and I wouldn’t have been eligible to apply for either outreachy/RGSOC. That is indeed unfortunate, but on the other hand the Meta community has an open door policy for new contributors and if you hadn’t been part of GSoC we would have made sure to [Encourage](https://blog.discourse.org/2017/02/the-discourse-encouragement-fund/) you to take on some more risky, larger scale contribution projects. --- _[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/project-ideas-for-gsoc/82668)._