Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers

From: ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net
To: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Richard Broersma <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-rrreviewers(at)postgresql(dot)org, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers
Date: 2011-01-27 08:49:18
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-rrreviewers

I would like to be Mentor for Funded Reviewers. My mission will be:
1)	We are empowered to create a better world together.
2)	Together we co-create our existence.
3)	Together we make Postgresql project a success. 
I am looking for long and fruitful association with Postgresql.

I will require to get training in technical, functional and culture of postgresql.

Pl let me know, if you decide positively.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Date: Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:00 am
Subject: Re: [RRR] [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Richard Broersma <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-rrreviewers(at)postgresql(dot)org, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>

> On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 14:15 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Richard Broersma
> > <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Simon Riggs 
> <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > >> You're paying the reviewers; are you paying the mentors?
> > >
> > > The answer to this question is that we can fund mentor 
> (teacher).  However,
> > > the amount to fund a mentor would be significantly less that 
> the amount to
> > > fund a reviewer (student).  The mentors are part of the 
> educational process.
> > 
> > Usually, in an educational process, it's the teachers who get paid,
> > and the students who have to pay to get educated.  I realize 
> this is
> > somewhat different because we want to encourage people to get 
> involved> in the project, but it still seems weird.
> Not somewhat, completely. Most of the "teachers" we have are already
> getting paid to work on PostgreSQL. There are some exceptions of 
> coursebut if you look at the list of people that are qualified to 
> actuallyreview code, they are getting paid *for PostgreSQL*.
> Now, that isn't to say you don't bring up a good point, you do. I 
> thinkit may be worthwhile to find a way to also compensate mentors 
> but as you
> say the goal here is encourage people to get involved. However 
> there is
> the underlying goal of educating future PostgreSQL contributors, and
> let's face it --- reviewing code sucks and money is a great motivator
> (especially in today's economy or if you are a starving student).
> >   And I actually kind of
> > agree with David Fetter.  Aside from the scenario he mentioned 
> (people> who don't get paid stop volunteering, a phenomenon that 
> has been
> > documented to occur in other contexts),
> You have people that are in it for the money. There is nothing wrong
> with that. Hopefully through this grant they will gain enough 
> skill and
> public notice to pick up a job where they might be able to give 
> back to
> the community on a paid basis (probably not, but maybe).
> If people stop volunteering cause there is no money, then we care why?
> They are likely not vested in the community anyway. Either way, the
> mission has been accomplished. They were paid to be educated and learn
> the review/commitfest process, they did so. If they wish to move on,
> that's up to them.
> Do we want them to stay? Of course! However, I fail how to see the
> concern has anything to do with the grant process.
> >  there's also the problem that
> > people might sign up to get the money but then do a lousy job. 
> Well that is the risk we all face and if the mentor feedback was that
> the person did a lousy job (let's assume they were just lazy, not that
> they tried really hard but weren't up to the task), then they 
> would risk
> ever receiving future grants.
> >  People
> > sometimes do a lousy job now too, but at least we can count on the
> > fact that everyone who signs up to do it has some intrinsic
> > motivation.
> I think anyone who is going to make it through a grant process
> specifically for this purpose is going to have some intrinsic 
> motivationbeyond money. We aren't talking about shelling out 50k here.
> Sincerely,
> Joshua D. Drake
> -- 
> Major Contributor
> Command Prompt, Inc: - 509.416.6579
> Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
> |
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Nicolas BarbierDate: 2011-01-27 10:09:41
Subject: Re: Re: In pg_test_fsync, use K(1024) rather than k(1000) for write size units.
Previous:From: Alex HunsakerDate: 2011-01-27 07:31:47
Subject: Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH]

pgsql-rrreviewers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-01-27 12:27:50
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2011-01-27 00:45:32
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group