X-Sylpheed-Account-Id:2
S:andy.sharp@lsi.com
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
X-Sylpheed-Encrypt:0
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
RMID:#imap/LSI/INBOX	0	E1EC65251D4B3D46BBC0AAA3C0629222B25A27A4@cosmail02.lsi.com
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:17:48 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@lsi.com>
To: "Stark, Brian" <Brian.Stark@lsi.com>
Subject: Re: Candidate Craig Thomas
Message-ID: <20100201181748.7b5a1a9f@ripper.onstor.net>
References: <4565AEA676113A449269C2F3A549520F2D07098C@cosmail03.lsi.com>
	<E1EC65251D4B3D46BBC0AAA3C0629222B25A2777@cosmail02.lsi.com>
	<20100201164508.144c31f7@ripper.onstor.net>
	<E1EC65251D4B3D46BBC0AAA3C0629222B25A27A4@cosmail02.lsi.com>
Organization: LSI
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:34:04 -0700 "Stark, Brian" <Brian.Stark@lsi.com>
wrote:

> I am hearing everything you have said, and I hope you are hearing me.

I am hearing you.  But I'm confused.  I thought we were working from
the same playbook, but lately I feel like I'm going out for the pass
and you're running a completely different play.

> We did not use an engineer req to target a manager position in
> Beaverton.  When we opened the additional reqs for Beaverton, there
> were 3 developer reqs and 1 manager req.  

OK.

> You are the only one who isn't clear about Ankur.  I talked with both
> Jobi and Bill, and they both said exactly the same thing I did.  We
> walked out of my office with a clear intent that we were giving both
> Ankur and John an offer.  I made it clear to you on a few occasions
> that if Terence and Brent both accepted, which I thought was highly
> unlikely, then you would likely have to make a decision between John
> and Darren.

Of course they did, what did you expect?  I would never have agreed to
that, so it's easy to remember what what I agreed to.  But it still
doesn't change the fact that we don't need 8 people in the filesystem
group.

Yes, you said that I would have to make a choice, but you were really
talking to yourself, unable to face the fact that if those two
accepted, Ankur wasn't needed or justified: you should have made the
choice between Ankur or a manager. But since you wanted to hire Ankur
despite the lack of need, you didn't want to make a choice. Why is it
always me, only and always, that has make a choice, and be patient, and
never Jobi or you?  That's how it currently feels to me.  That I'm
wearing 47 patience hats for you, and just getting screwed for doing it.

> As for juggling candidates, we only juggled John because of the
> mix-up with the recruiter.  We and the external recruiter did not
> follow the process with in-house recruiting.  I blame this mostly on
> the external recruiter because he and Dennis had a conversation about
> process after we hired Siva.

We're juggling Darren and possibly others.

> I also said in my last email that you need to give me a project list
> of who will work on what.  I still don't have this, and until I do,
> there's no way I can justify getting more reqs.  Saying we need the
> people does not mean the reqs get automatically signed off by the
> ladder of approvals.  We need to show a clear project list and where
> we are short.

You and I already did that back in June/July.  LSI bought off on it and
it was approved before they even bought us.  The original reqs that we
got were based on that, but were used to hire other folks.  Again, this
is about Ankur, not the people I need.  Heck, have you even checked to
see if such a writeup is not on the wiki?  

> I've maintained my position for several months now that I don't think
> new engineers will help with TuxStor.  I believe you disagree with
> this claim, which is fine, but again, I need a list of projects for
> what they will work on.  In addition to helping with HR, Nelson,
> Phil, Millind, and everyone else that signs off on these reqs, this
> list will also help to bring in other people, say Terence or Brent,
> to work on more immediate-term projects than filesystem roadmap
> projects.  The people we've hired in Beaverton can also help with
> platform projects.

You've said that you agree that they are needed, but....  That's
acknowledgement that you know they are justified.  The original reason
you were saying they wouldn't help with tuxstor is that you didn't
believe we could find any candidates and bring them on board and
contributing by the December time frame.  Of course, the reason for
that 'but' has evolved quite a bit over the course of history.

Nelson already bought off on these folks, he sat right across from me
the first week of August and talked about 6 people for my group.  Two
of those would have been test writers, so possibly QA.  He didn't get
that from me, he got it from the material presented to LSI by you and
others.

> I have not reviewed Vahid's resume, so don't bring him in yet.  Plus,
> as I told you last week, we *must* work with Dave Lawson to bring in
> candidates who come from external recruiters.  Bringing these
> candidates in on our own will result in the exact same thing that
> happened when we brought John in.  After I've reviewed Vahid's resume
> and if we want to bring him in, then you need to contact Dave Lawson
> and get the ball rolling.  I don't necessarily like this, but that's
> the way it works.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Sharp [mailto:andy.sharp@lsi.com] 
> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 4:45 PM
> To: Stark, Brian
> Subject: Re: Candidate Craig Thomas
> 
> And I renew my objection to using an engineer req to hire a manager.
> If you are going to try and tell me to re-justify (even though you and
> I worked on it together back in June/July/August time) engineers for
> my group, well, I think you're saying that because you haven't done
> the work to justify this position to HR/etc and get a separate req
> for it.
> 
> It's not fair, and I can't keep juggling candidates and making them
> wait months for a decision.
> 
> I (and you) worked hard to produce the justifications for the
> engineers that we needed.
> 
> I hope you can hear this.  Hiring Ankur falls into a similar boat: the
> deal when we left the meeting was to wait on everyone but John until
> the decision from Terence and Kingsbury came in.  But they accepted,
> so there's no justification for hiring Ankur.  We have roughly twice
> the people in the filesystem group that we need for their
> deliverables.
> 
> Craig is different because we probably do need him.
> 
> I'm bringing Vahid in to interview.  Would you like to talk to him?
> 
> 
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:50:16 -0700 "Stark, Brian" <Brian.Stark@lsi.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I would like to add some detail to what Monica has said below.  
> > 
> > Craig worked with the Polyserve folks we've hired, both at HP and
> > Sequent, and was a manager for several of them at HP.  Jobi was in
> > Beaverton last week and met Craig in person, and I talked to him
> > over the phone.  
> > 
> > We've all given Craig a thumbs-up, and for that reason, we decided
> > to push forward with an offer for Craig since we need a local
> > manager in Beaverton for the group there.  We relied heavily on the
> > feedback from the Beaverton filesystems group since they will be
> > reporting to Craig if he accepts.
> > 
> > 
> > Brian
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kirkland, Monica 
> > Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 3:12 PM
> > To: Boulanger, Sandrine; Shankar, Shiva; Sharp, Andy; Stark, Brian;
> > Kwan, Ed; Fisher, Bill Subject: Candidate Craig Thomas
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > We have decided to give Mr. Thomas an offer so we will not be
> > conducting any interviews with him on Thursday. Thank you for
> > standing by...
> > 
> > Monica
