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
solution.

So it shouldn't be an issue in one case, and in the other we would
re-evaluate.

Does that sound reasonable?

Thanks.

Bonnie



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
>   Friday:
> 
> 
>>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.
> 
>   Dave
> 


Reply via email to