Re: [RRR] [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I don't think that's it exactly. Basically, if you fund reviewers, > and we get lots more people doing reviews and they're all great, I'll > be happy. If you fund reviewers, and we get lots more people doing > reviews and they're all terrible, I'll be unhappy. And likewise if > you do or don't fund mentors. The results matter a lot, and none of > us know that for sure yet. This makes sense. I should clarify that this point in time were talking about one maybe two people can awarded grants. Over the course of a year I wouldn't expect more that four grants issued (at least for now.) With these numbers, there is too much to be gained or lost from the perceptive of the community in my opinion. > I think all I (and others) are asking you > do is think about it carefully before you decide what to do; I at > least am not trying to push you down any particular path. > Fair enough. > > So any person regardless of association or funding is free to approach to > > community for assistance. > > I strongly agree with that statement. Of course, all such help is on > a best-effort, volunteer basis. If you need more than that, you can > try (a) begging, (b) T-shirts, or (c) money. What's not clear to me > is whether you do in fact need more than that, and which of (a)-(c) is > the best way to get it. > > > In addition, third party organizations should > > maintain a healthy disconnection from the community. > > I'm not sure what you mean by this. > Now that I read it, I not sure what I meant either. :) How about this: the selection, management, and oversight of grants and mentees should be opaque to the community so as to prevent distraction. There should be no appearance of community endorsement of such programs. -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr.
Re: [RRR] [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > It's just that > I require both income and sleep. That's probably not an issue for > people who are just getting started in the community. > > Another question is whether you really need assigned mentors at all. ... > Very few emails on -hackers go unanswered. > So I take it that the concern is not how reviews are funded, but over the perceived connection between the organic community and third party organizations. This makes sense. So any person regardless of association or funding is free to approach to community for assistance. In addition, third party organizations should maintain a healthy disconnection from the community. Is this correct? -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr.
Re: [RRR] [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > 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. This is probably a good point. I've never mentored, taught, authored a patch or review, so I can say what is similar or different. > 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. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/books/chapters/0515-1st-levitt.html > Interesting. -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr.
Re: [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Simon Riggs 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. -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr.
Re: [RRR] [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 9:31 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote: > Part of GCOC's success has been in allowing a class of people to > participate who otherwise would have had to get summer jobs flipping > burgers. > This is essentially the idea for this grant, to fund a person in learning a new skill. And hopefully, such a person might continue to offer support for the project after the initial experience. -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr.
Re: [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:38 AM, David Fetter wrote: > I'm thinking that we should consider *very* carefully before we > introduce payments into what had been an all-volunteer effort. You > may get people to do things they might not otherwise have done, but > you'll also make people wonder whether they should be volunteering at > all. > > Offhand, I'd say this is a really bad > idea.<http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate> Wow, I hadn't considered this. But I'm reminded of GSOC, which is essentially doing something similar. Has this effect already taken place among the volunteering patch writers? -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr.
Re: [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > We have the funding. We're looking for mentors. Next we'll just > > about ready to open the application process. But I'd expect several > > weeks to pass before have ready to look at applicants. > > You're paying the reviewers; are you paying the mentors? > I don't believe that PgUS can use the word "pay." Since PgUS is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, there are restrictions how funding can be used. One such way is to award grants to provide a learning experience by development of a well defined deliverable. are you paying the mentors? > Honestly, I hadn't considered the possibility of funding mentors. I'll have to raise this question with PgUS to see if there is a provision for this. However at this point-in-time, I am only proposing funding the reviewer. The utlimate goal is to add more people to the ranks of reviewers. > Are the mentors restricted to being US members? > The mentors can be anyone. If the possibility exists that PgUS can fund mentors, then prospective mentors will need to be or become members of PgUS. -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr.
Re: [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > For 9.1, what about doing a bug-finding bounty when we get into the 9.1 > beta cycle? Mozilla has been using bug bounties and they've been > surprisingly successful. > This is do-able. We just have to present this in a way that will meet the requirements of the 501c. It needs to be a learning experience and there needs to be a well defined criteria of what will be delivered by the person awarded with the grant. -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr.
Re: [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > In several weeks, the review period for 9.1 will be over. Is this a plan > for 9.2? Yes. Our timing for this grant is unfortunate as it will likely be issued too late to be useful for the 9.1 commit-fests. The delay is mostly my fault. I wasn't able to devote enough time to the grant process late last year. However, having a mentee begin work early in the 9.2 commit-fest cycle might be advantageous. I imagine that there is less pressure to review all of the patches in the early commit-fests. Perhaps this will give prospective mentors the ablility to spend more time with mentee's. -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr.
Re: [RRR] [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Dave Page wrote: > > Will the scheme be open to everyone, or just .USians? I do believe that such grants are limited to members of PgUS. Although, I should mention that there's no restriction for residents of any country becoming a member of PgUS. > If the latter, > I'd be a little concerned that it may have a negative effect on > attracting reviewers from outside the US. > Hmm... I hadn't considered the possibility of PgUS grants beings a turn-off to potential non-US residents. Would PgUS's open enrollment alleviate your concern? -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr.
Re: [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 1/24/11 12:17 PM, Richard Broersma wrote: > > PgUS is preparing to fund a grant for PgUS members to learn and > > participate in the patch review process. We looking for experienced > > reviewers that can assist a candidate through to process of testing a > > patch - to submitting the final review. The ultimate deliverable > > would be the actual review posted to Hackers. > > > > Would anyone be available to assist with this? > > Do we have candidate mentees? > > Not at the moment. Were still in the process of getting ready. We have the funding. We're looking for mentors. Next we'll just about ready to open the application process. But I'd expect several weeks to pass before have ready to look at applicants. -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr.
[HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers
PgUS is preparing to fund a grant for PgUS members to learn and participate in the patch review process. We looking for experienced reviewers that can assist a candidate through to process of testing a patch - to submitting the final review. The ultimate deliverable would be the actual review posted to Hackers. Would anyone be available to assist with this? Thoughts? -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] "writable CTEs"
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > I'd prefer something short but easily understandable, but those two might be > mutually exclusive. Volatile CTE's doesn't add any more clarity either. Maybe "Round Trip Reduction" CTE's. :) -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Recent developments have turned it back into non-deprecated mode; it's > not going anywhere, and it needs to be fully documented. >From what I recall, there isn't anything in the trigger documentation or CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER documentation that says the trigger function must explicitly raise an exception to create the notification that the custom constraint was violated. Would this be a good place for it? -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr. Visit the Los Angeles PostgreSQL Users Group (LAPUG) http://pugs.postgresql.org/lapug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] SQL command to edit postgresql.conf, with comments
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > Oh. Now that's an interesting perspective ... you're suggesting that we > take the comments and apply them as COMMENTS on the specific pg_settings? On a side note regarding comments, I'd like to make a request for a more comprehensive commenting mechanism. The first though that comes to my mind would allow for comments to be stored and annotated using XML or sgml. It'd be nice to be able to generate user documentation from selected comments taken from application derived database objects. I don't know, maybe this is already possible. -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr. Visit the Los Angeles PostgreSQL Users Group (LAPUG) http://pugs.postgresql.org/lapug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
