On 2/11/14, 1:42 AM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad"
<[email protected]>" wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 02:15:37 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/10/14, 6:24 AM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad"
<[email protected]>" wrote:
No, I don't think it is only a matter of resources. For instance, if I
had the time
Oh, the unbelievable irony.
Not really. If you have too many outstanding issues it means you have
added to many features. It means you failed to do feature freeze at an
earlier stage.
It could also mean that you don't give priority to mentoring. Sometimes
it is better to let your best people do mentoring and help bringing
"master level students" up to speed.
People are not loyal to a project. People are loyal to other people. If
a mentor invests time in you, you will feel a social debt. This is the
principle of gifting.
You can create a strategy for mentoring. One obvious one is to focus on
making the code base suitable for academia. Then you can offer
supervision of master students. Academics love to have good external
supervisors taking some load off their backs. That means lowering the
requirements for compilation speed in order to get in some high level
optimization and other features that you cannot otherwise have.
You can give priority to getting in support for more social bonding
between developers, like give priority to an IDE that supports CSCW
style collaboration (seeing the code view of others). With Skype that
could make pair programming (from XP) possible.
There are many options.
I confess I don't understand all of this (not sure whether the
pointed-out irony has been acknowledged, not sure even whether it's
subtle trolling), but upon reading it a couple of times I get the sense
it's the exact management gobbledygook I'd like to protect this
community from.
Andrei
