> On Fri 21 Oct 2005 at 02:17PM, Bonnie Corwin wrote:
> > > What's the minimum qualification for membership in tier 3?
> > 
> > There is no minimum qualification which is the reason for the partner
> > requirement.
> I don't agree with this structure, then.  I think that at a minimum,
> one should be considered a trained, qualified, and active contributor to
> the release in question.

  I agree (with Dan).  This plan seems focused on the gate and to a
  lesser extent the tier-3 engineer, and pays little attention to the
  needs of the original contributor.  If someone is "unable or
  unwilling to mentor" someone internally, I don't see how or why they
  should take on a role where they're effectively mentoring someone
  outside of Sun -- someone who has no exposure to how Sun works
  internally and is 100% dependent on their sponsor for guidance.

  As a means of growing the experience of our more junior employees, it
  seems like a pretty poor diet.  There is more to becoming a good
  engineer than learning the process surrounding putback, and there's a
  huge difference between shepherding pre-made fixes and generating
  your own.  I think the overhead spent on a tier-3 engineer would be
  better spent getting them to the tier-2 position based on their own
  work -- better for both the engineers and the contributors.


Reply via email to