X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Received: by onstor-exch02.onstor.net 
	id <01C74A3E.062FAB61@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:27:45 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: PERFORCE change 22636 for review
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:27:45 -0800
Message-ID: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E025BDC29@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E025BDB4C@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: PERFORCE change 22636 for review
Thread-Index: AcdKIlk4o+IQDhC8QJqDtjcQXMmnZgAA4wegAABC8aAAAhlv8AAAfqUwAAAcAfAAAuhQQA==
From: "Ken Renshaw" <ken.renshaw@onstor.com>
To: "Jay Michlin" <jay.michlin@onstor.com>
Cc: "Andy Sharp" <andy.sharp@onstor.com>,
	"Paul Hammer" <paul.hammer@onstor.com>

Thanks Jay. Andy has evidently already spoken to Trudy, and she has in
turn already put the plan into action. She just notified Sandrine and I
of a new QA engineer starting soon so we can get things underway.=20

I agree that these are all good steps to wring order of out chaos.

Thanks,

-Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Michlin=20
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:08 PM
To: Ken Renshaw
Cc: Andy Sharp; Paul Hammer
Subject: RE: PERFORCE change 22636 for review

Ken,

PRs through QA are fine with me. Whatever works.

BTW, you and Andy opening the entire topic of new hire processing is a
good thing, but it's going to take some work. The fact is that until
recently, the only formal new hire processing we have had was run by
Kevin and aimed at getting computer, telephone etc. set up. Everyone
else sort of found out informally. The hiring manager had to know to
visit Margaret and Kathy and make sure payroll and related matters were
handled. Desks space was allocated by mystery. PF and CQ licenses were
handled after the fact and only on a crisis basis. Business cards and
the telephone/email directory were updated by Cynthia and Gloria as (and
if) they heard about new hires. Such is life in a startup.

Trudy is working to bring order out of this chaos. So if you visit her
and explain the virtue of adding CQ and PF and whatever else you think
about to the process, she ought to be interested. OTOH, we don't wat to
risk losing the effective process Kevin has been running.

jay



-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Renshaw=20
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:58 PM
To: Jay Michlin
Cc: Andy Sharp
Subject: RE: PERFORCE change 22636 for review

We can't forget him now can we :)

Thanks Jay. I'll fill in the blanks and make sure I get enough for maybe
5 or so future hires. BTW these PRs typically I've sent through Paul as
part of the QA budget, I assume that's still okay to do. Thanks again.

-Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Michlin
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:47 PM
To: Ken Renshaw
Cc: Andy Sharp
Subject: RE: PERFORCE change 22636 for review

Oops... make that 21... I left out Larry...

Ken,

Software Development has the following 20 people:

Max
Tim
Andy
Jobi
Henry
Mike
Wencheng
Jeff
Brian
Nagendra
Charissa
Ron
Jeseem
Bill
Jim
Chris
Rendell
Yuvarani (from HCL, working here)
Ravi Prasad (from HCL, working here)
Narain (from HCL, working here)

Plus Naveen (offer extended, probably start April 1) Plus possible one
more currently under way.

jay



-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Renshaw
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:44 AM
To: Jay Michlin
Cc: Andy Sharp
Subject: RE: PERFORCE change 22636 for review

On a like note, Jay, do you have a list of everyone under you that I can
check to make sure we're covered for licenses? Maybe the contents of the
dl-software list if that is a good reflection of your team.

Thanks,

-Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Renshaw
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:40 AM
To: Andy Sharp
Cc: Jay Michlin
Subject: RE: PERFORCE change 22636 for review

Hi again Andy, and thanks. We should probably talk more ;)

Sorry for being cranky, I didn't mean to be. It's actually refreshing to
have someone take interest in every checkin to the degree you do. I wish
everyone did, and thanks for the extra set of eyes.=20

Yes, I think a missing piece is the new hire communication, and making
Trudy the locus for it all seems like a good idea. If you wanted to send
her a note that would be great, thanks. She should probably notify
myself for Perforce, Sandrine for Clearquest account setup. I imagine
she's already notifying IT.

Thanks Andy, and if anything else seems weird to you at first glance,
feel free to prod me about it. It's quite possible there might be
something screwy.

Have a good one,

-Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Sharp
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:10 AM
To: Ken Renshaw
Cc: Jay Michlin
Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 22636 for review

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 22:19:49 -0800 "Ken Renshaw"
<ken.renshaw@onstor.com> wrote:

> I'm not even sure what you're last sentence means Andy, if your quip=20
> was true wouldn't we have free licenses??

That's exactly what I mean.

> //depot/nfx-test/... is the QA test repository that uses a shared p4=20
> license because every test client in the lab needs it, and licenses=20
> are issued per real human, not per machine ( that's even according to=20
> Perforce's license agreement ). It's just not feasible to license=20
> 100's of machines that are shared by many QA engineers in automated=20
> scripted test environments. The configuration management is at the=20
> machine level in this case. What *is* a foul here is using=20
> localhost.localdomain as the client name, which should be something=20
> like c9r20-linux ( computer 9 on rack 20 running linux ). This makes=20
> perfect sense to everyone else and is what we will continue to use for

> client specs in our test environment.

Makes perfect sense to me.  Thanks for explaining it.  At least I will
know what's going on in the future and won't freak out.

> I agree all developers should have their own licenses. In the past it=20
> was decided by management including Jerry to not buy licenses for all=20
> of HCL but to use the client space to denote it, e.g.
> perforce@sahayaj-lambo, even though some/many of the HCL folk do have=20
> their own. If management would like to change this that's perfectly=20
> fine with me, and I'll collect the quote and get a PR written up for=20
> signature for any we are desirous of, but talking down to me like this

> in the wrong context is not helpful.

I was actually going to you as the authority on the matter to get the
low-down, not talking down to you.  I wanted to know what was going on,
and now I do, at least more than before.  I watch the checkins, and like
to know what's going on with our software, and was not aware that
nfx-test was a qa-only testbed area.  I seems to me that we were on the
same page as far as this issue goes.

> The real problem in not keeping up to date with licenses is that dev=20
> hires people, doesn't plan for it by telling me beforehand, they

So what I'm hearing is that there is a piece missing from our new hire
process where we should be informing you ahead of time and requesting a
perforce account, before they arrive, so that you can manage the
situation in a rational manner.  Why don't you or I fill Trudy in on
adding that piece to the new hire process and hopefully that will
improve the situation going forward.  If you would rather I do it, just
let me know, I'd be happy to take care of it.

a

