On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 04:10:15PM -0600, Bonnie Corwin wrote:
> 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.
How exactly do you determine if they are doing a good job? Again,
this is not a question of whether the putback is successful or not.
It is a question of whether the tier-3 three engineer is adequately
and accurately communicating Solaris engineering practices to the
contributor, not to mention appropriately representing Sun.
The only system I could see possibly addressing this issue is one
where every mail the tier-3 sponsor sends to the contributor, and
vice versa, also CCs the partner engineer. Mistakes can be corrected
as they occur. This has many problems:
People are easily dropped off of CC lists in 1-1 conversations. I
would expect this to happen frequently with conversations initiated
by the contributor, since the contributor doesn't know "the other
guy" and has no reason to remember to include him.
It looks really bad when we correct each other, worse if
disagreement breaks out. The sponsor should be authoritative.
Detecting/dealing with errors of omission is tricky. At what point
does the partner stop waiting for the sponsor to mention something,
step in, and say it themselves?
Lastly and most importantly, the contributors are doing important
work and shouldn't be treated like guinea pigs.
> Does that sound reasonable?