Hi Dave -
Thanks for re-sending - I had missed this.
You raise a good point - thanks for bringing it up.
Depending on how things go (which is hard to project at this point), it
might not be an issue. If we get a manageable number of third-tier
sponsors who do a good job, we shouldn't have a problem.
However, if we get a lot of third-thier sponsors who do a poor job, that
would be a major issue. And we would regroup and look for a better
So it shouldn't be an issue in one case, and in the other we would
Does that sound reasonable?
David Powell wrote On 10/25/05 15:58,:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 12:24:37PM -0500, David Robinson wrote:
>>So the new third category are people willing to do all the
>>grunt work of builds and tests that consumes all the time.
>>This is the same thing we expect out of any Solaris
>>developer so potentially the pool is anyone who has
>>successfully done just one putback.
>>Then the sponsor plays more of the role that is more traditionally
>>done by a CRT advocate, verifying they did everything
>>necessary, repeat until satisfied.
>>If I have this right, this seems very reasonable.
> Since it seems to have been lost, I'll repeat my comment from
>>Dan Price said:
>>>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.
> My point is that whatever process we put in place needs to do a lot
> more than just ensure that what gets put back works. The proposed
> structure does only that.
> Regardless of whether they have a "tier-2" or "tier-1" partner, a
> sponsor is the primary source of information for an external
> contributor. It is difficult to unlearn bad habits, and someone who
> doesn't qualify as a "tier-2" sponsor doesn't sound like they would
> have -- much less be able to teach -- the good habits a new
> contributor needs to learn. I don't think putting inexperienced
> people on the front line is fair to the contributor, and I don't
> think its good for OpenSolaris in the long term.
> To look at this from another perspective, an engineer meeting only
> the minimum requirements for "tier-3" probably knows less about
> putting back than our more prolific external contributors.