Hello everyone,
We are so grateful to have received almost 120 applications to work with Processing Foundation as the mentor org for Google Summer of Code 2026, including many exceptional proposals. During the final round of application review, every finalist and semi-finalist proposal was carefully reviewed by 2-5 people, including mentors, org admins, and core contributors relevant to the topic. Given the number of outstanding proposals we’ve received, the selection process was very difficult. This week, we received the wonderful news that Processing Foundation has been awarded a total of 6 slots from Google Summer of Code! These are all very exciting projects, and we’d like to congratulate this year’s cohort. You can see the selected projects here.
Due to the really strong applicants and creative ideas we’ve received this year, the p5.js Shared Responsibility Committee will consider supporting the strongest applications that unfortunately did not receive a slot through Processing Foundation’s Open Source Software Microgrants Program. We will send everyone an email by May 9th, which will include (1) feedback on your GSoC application and, in some cases, (2) information about the microgrant program.
All applications were reviewed by GSoC@PF org admins and mentors, and below are some general observations on how we made final decisions. In addition to similar considerations that were also relevant last year, the following guided our decision:
- Whether and how an artistic or creative practice informed the project idea
- PRs were not required (not all of the 6 selected contributors have merged PRs), but if PRs were made we looked at whether they followed contributor guidelines, and how much they were opened or closed.
- Helpful activity in online community spaces: generally, balancing different types of contribution is most helpful. For example, this could be participating in technical discussions, testing, helping to review PRs, and contributing code. When contributing code, it is very helpful when contributions follow guidance in the program and contribution guidelines. Making surface-level PRs that increased the volume of review requests was in some cases not helpful.
- Motivation: we looked for applications where the proposed project was very relevant to the personal values and technical interests of the applicant.
- For technically ambitious proposals, we also looked for evidence of relevant prior experience in the proposal, materials you linked, or in contribution history.
Within the next couple of days, all applicants will receive (or have already received) some feedback. (If you do not receive anything via email by the end of day on May 9th, but you applied, please @ or message me!)
All the best,
Kit