AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20070206133603.4339f591@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:onstor-exch02.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<jay.michlin@onstor.com>,<ken.renshaw@onstor.com>,<paul.hammer@onstor.com>,<sandrine.boulanger@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@onstor-exch02.onstor.net/INBOX	0	BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E025BDB4C@onstor-exch02.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:36:30 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: "Jay Michlin" <jay.michlin@onstor.com>
Cc: "Ken Renshaw" <ken.renshaw@onstor.com>, "Paul Hammer"
 <paul.hammer@onstor.com>, Sandrine Boulanger
 <sandrine.boulanger@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 22636 for review
Message-ID: <20070206133630.32a9c8fc@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E025BDB4C@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
References: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E025BDB39@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E025BDB4C@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I already talked to Trudy earlier today and it's all looking quite
excellent.  We talked about the new hire workflow and the need to
inform Ken and Sandrine of software engineer type new hires, and she is
going to add the appropriate thing to her check-off list, which
currently only had insurance type stuff on it (the IT stuff is handled
separately from her).  She will investigate with Paul and team as to
the best way to handle this and make it a regular part of the new hire
work flow so Ken and others can manage their software in a sane and
rational manner.  Super cool, everyone!

Cheers,

a


On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:08:08 -0800 "Jay Michlin"
<jay.michlin@onstor.com> wrote:

> 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 
> 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. 
> 
> 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 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 license because every test client in the lab needs it, and
> > licenses are issued per real human, not per machine ( that's even
> > according to Perforce's license agreement ). It's just not feasible
> > to license 100's of machines that are shared by many QA engineers
> > in automated scripted test environments. The configuration
> > management is at the machine level in this case. What *is* a foul
> > here is using localhost.localdomain as the client name, which
> > should be something like c9r20-linux ( computer 9 on rack 20
> > running linux ). This makes 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 was decided by management including Jerry to not buy licenses
> > for all 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 their own. If management would like to change this that's
> > perfectly fine with me, and I'll collect the quote and get a PR
> > written up for 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 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
> 
