Patch Pilot report

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Andrew Bennetts writes:

 > I'm more uncertain about the long term effects... will this mean we
 > handhold contributors indefinitely when they might have graduated to
 > self-sufficient sooner?  My guess is no; a sufficiently motivated
 > contributor will learn from the example of the tests I write for them,

Well, maybe.  There's a lot to be said for the human factor.  There's
a story Tom Watson Jr. used to like to tell about selling cash
registers.  He was a very successful cash register salesman before he
turned IBM into the best computer computer ever, and one that has
managed to rise from the dead two or three times.  But he didn't start
out that way.  His first month on the job he didn't sell one, no
matter how hard he tried.  But he stuck with it, and the second month
one of the old hands went out with him and sold cash registers with
him.  It was the example of the older man that taught him the "knack"
of selling.  And that experience of paternalism was such an influence
on Watson that paternalism (good and bad) was to pervade IBM for
several decades.

But that's just speculation on my part, too.  Effort "matching" could
have a strong incentive effect if it's perceived as personal attention
by the contributor.

 > I think you misunderstood me?  I piloted patches from the less
 > experienced and one-off contributors.  I basically ignored contributions
 > from regulars all week, because I knew they would be taken care of with
 > no pilot intervention.

Yes, I did misunderstand you.  My understanding was that both newer
contributors and regulars needed attention, and you focused on the new
ones to the detriment of the more frequent contributors.  But you're
saying you knew that other reviewers would pick up (presumably higher
quality) stuff from the "usual suspects", and you concentrated on
polishing the diamonds in the rough.