Thread: 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.

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?

--
                                  -- Josh Berkus
                                     PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                                     http://www.pgexperts.com

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Richard Broersma
<richard.broersma@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> 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.

Will the scheme be open to everyone, or just .USians? If the latter,
I'd be a little concerned that it may have a negative effect on
attracting reviewers from outside the US.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Richard Broersma
<richard.broersma@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> 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.

OK.

>>
>> 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?

Yes, I think so.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 14:14 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Richard Broersma
> <richard.broersma@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> 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.
>
> OK.

Correct. You will have to be a member of PgUS. However, we don't
restrict who can be a member.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt

> 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.

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.

--
                                  -- Josh Berkus
                                     PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                                     http://www.pgexperts.com

On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 18:43 -0800, Richard Broersma 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?

Are the mentors restricted to being US members?

--
 Simon Riggs           http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 11:15 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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.

Many people are contributing patches for free. Will those people get
paid to fix their own bugs? I guess they might well be better at finding
and fixing them than others, so it is an interesting question.

--
 Simon Riggs           http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Many people are contributing patches for free. Will those people get
> paid to fix their own bugs? I guess they might well be better at finding
> and fixing them than others, so it is an interesting question.

I remember hearing about a case where the programmers started leaving
bugs in their code on purpose, so they could get paid for fixing them.
 Setting these things up so that they work well can be tricky.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:17:16PM -0800, 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?
>
> Thoughts?

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.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

On Jan 26, 2011, at 7:48 AM, Richard Broersma wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:38 AM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> 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.
>
> 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
thevolunteering patch writers?  

GCOC has been great. It helps bring in people who otherwise might not have participated in a project. IME, those who
werealready on a project were glad to have them. 

I think M. Fetter is completely wrong. If people are rethinking whether they should volunteer based on whether other
peopleare being funded for their time to review patches, we don't want such people around anyway. Let them leave. 

You might consider targeting a specific audience, though. Part of GCOC's success has been in allowing a class of people
toparticipate who otherwise would have had to get summer jobs flipping burgers. If you're helping people to help the
projectwho otherwise could not have, it's a good thing. 

Best,

David

On Jan 26, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Richard Broersma wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 9:31 AM, David E. Wheeler <david@kineticode.com> wrote:
>>  Part of GCOC's success has been in allowing a class of people to participate who otherwise would have had to get
summerjobs flipping burgers.  
>>>
>>
>
> This is essentially the idea for this grant, to fund a person in learning a new skill.  And hopefully, such a person
mightcontinue to offer support for the project after the initial experience. 

Perfect.

David

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Richard Broersma
<richard.broersma@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> 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.

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.  And I actually kind of
agree with David Fetter.  Aside from the scenario he mentioned (people
who don't get paid stop volunteering, a phenomenon that has been
documented to occur in other contexts), there's also the problem that
people might sign up to get the money but then do a lousy job.  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

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

"David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes:
> I think M. Fetter is completely wrong. If people are rethinking
> whether they should volunteer based on whether other people are being
> funded for their time to review patches, we don't want such people
> around anyway. Let them leave.

I can see his concern though: we have to be very careful to avoid
establishing perverse incentives.

The larger picture is that quite a few people are paid to work on
Postgres already --- me, for instance.  That doesn't seem to have
discouraged other people from working on it on their own time.  But
I'm not paid according to how many bugs I find, and wouldn't want
to be.

I don't have a problem with funding people to work on Postgres.
We just have to be careful that the grants aren't set up in a way
that might encourage people to game the system.

I'm also not sure that "review a patch" is a well-chosen specific goal
to have here, especially not for people who've not been around the
project at all.  It's hard enough for people who *do* have a lot of
context to do useful reviews.

            regards, tom lane

On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 14:15 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Richard Broersma
> <richard.broersma@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> 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.
>
> 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.

Not somewhat, completely. Most of the "teachers" we have are already
getting paid to work on PostgreSQL. There are some exceptions of course
but if you look at the list of people that are qualified to actually
review code, they are getting paid *for PostgreSQL*.

Now, that isn't to say you don't bring up a good point, you do. I think
it may be worthwhile to find a way to also compensate mentors but as you
say the goal here is encourage people to get involved. However there is
the underlying goal of educating future PostgreSQL contributors, and
let's face it --- reviewing code sucks and money is a great motivator
(especially in today's economy or if you are a starving student).

>   And I actually kind of
> agree with David Fetter.  Aside from the scenario he mentioned (people
> who don't get paid stop volunteering, a phenomenon that has been
> documented to occur in other contexts),

You have people that are in it for the money. There is nothing wrong
with that. Hopefully through this grant they will gain enough skill and
public notice to pick up a job where they might be able to give back to
the community on a paid basis (probably not, but maybe).

If people stop volunteering cause there is no money, then we care why?
They are likely not vested in the community anyway. Either way, the
mission has been accomplished. They were paid to be educated and learn
the review/commitfest process, they did so. If they wish to move on,
that's up to them.

Do we want them to stay? Of course! However, I fail how to see the
concern has anything to do with the grant process.

>  there's also the problem that
> people might sign up to get the money but then do a lousy job.

Well that is the risk we all face and if the mentor feedback was that
the person did a lousy job (let's assume they were just lazy, not that
they tried really hard but weren't up to the task), then they would risk
ever receiving future grants.

>  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.

I think anyone who is going to make it through a grant process
specifically for this purpose is going to have some intrinsic motivation
beyond money. We aren't talking about shelling out 50k here.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt

Just a small comment: If someone offered me $15 to mentor a reviewer, I
would tell him to kindly go away.  If the same person were to offer me a
$15 t-shirt saying I mentored the review (or whatever), I would consider
it.

Yes, I know I could buy the t-shirt with the money.  People are strange
that way.

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Not somewhat, completely. Most of the "teachers" we have are already
> getting paid to work on PostgreSQL. There are some exceptions of course
> but if you look at the list of people that are qualified to actually
> review code, they are getting paid *for PostgreSQL*.

Most people who are making their living from PostgreSQL are getting
paid for work they do for customers.  The work they do in the
community is sponsored, incidental, something that they do for the PR
value, and/or on their own time.  There are only a very, very small
number of people who get paid to spend a significant portion of their
time hacking on PG just for the heck of it.

Now, if you can get enough qualified people to volunteer to review
without paying them, by all means, don't pay them - anything else
would be silly.  But I think that in general people who are earning
their living off of PG are *more* likely to need to be paid, not less.
 My ability to increase the amount of PG stuff I'm doing for free is
zero, if not negative.  It's not that I don't want to.  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.
Perhaps if newcomer Alice is assigned to mentor Bob, experienced PG
hacker Charlie will feel he doesn't need to offer advice, because
Bob's got it.  But what if Bob (who isn't getting paid, after all) has
to fly to Tajikistan that week to help somebody who IS paying him?
Then Alice is left hanging.  Or alternatively, what if Alice (knowing
that Bob is her mentor) emails him repeatedly for advice off-list, but
it turns out that Bob is out of step with the community on that
particular issue[1]?  Better to have Alice asking on the list and
getting advice in public.  Very few emails on -hackers go unanswered.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

[1] This has been known to happen.  Even to people who might be
referred to as Bob.  Even today.  I'm just saying.  And don't call me
Bob.

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:29:23PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 14:15 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Richard Broersma
> > <richard.broersma@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Not somewhat, completely. Most of the "teachers" we have are already
> getting paid to work on PostgreSQL. There are some exceptions of course
> but if you look at the list of people that are qualified to actually
> review code, they are getting paid *for PostgreSQL*.
>
> Now, that isn't to say you don't bring up a good point, you do. I think
> it may be worthwhile to find a way to also compensate mentors but as you
> say the goal here is encourage people to get involved. However there is
> the underlying goal of educating future PostgreSQL contributors, and
> let's face it --- reviewing code sucks and money is a great motivator
> (especially in today's economy or if you are a starving student).

I admire your motives, and agree with them.  We just differ on how
best to do this.

One situation I want to avoid is one where the mere offer of money,
even if money never changes hands, totally changes the situation, and
much for the worse.  I'll be happy to describe such a situation off
line if anyone's interested.  Another is a system of perverse
incentives, as others have described, and perverse incentives are
harder to avoid up front than they first appear, as money is often
itself an incentive to game systems in novel and terrible ways.

One thing I've thought of that could help and would be a good use of
money would be an extension to the pgbuildfarm code that detects and
acts on bit rot.  I don't have time to build it right now, but I'd be
happy to iron out the spec and help someone else, that person being
paid to develop it.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Richard Broersma
<richard.broersma@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

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.  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.

> 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.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Richard Broersma
<richard.broersma@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.

I think there's no need to announce who you've made grants too, if
that's what you mean.  But it shouldn't be hidden from the community
either.  We ought to know who to praise/blame if something good/bad
happens.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 17:39 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Richard Broersma
> <richard.broersma@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> I think there's no need to announce who you've made grants too, if
> that's what you mean.  But it shouldn't be hidden from the community
> either.  We ought to know who to praise/blame if something good/bad
> happens.

We are a 501c3. I don't think we are allowed to hide it even if we
wanted to :P

JD


--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt

Hi,

I would like to be Mentor for Funded Reviewers. My mission will be:
1)    We are empowered to create a better world together.
2)    Together we co-create our existence.
3)    Together we make Postgresql project a success.
I am looking for long and fruitful association with Postgresql.

I will require to get training in technical, functional and culture of postgresql.

Pl let me know, if you decide positively.

Regards,
Vijay.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Date: Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:00 am
Subject: Re: [RRR] [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Broersma <richard.broersma@gmail.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Josh Berkus
<josh@agliodbs.com>,pgsql-rrreviewers@postgresql.org, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> 

> On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 14:15 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Richard Broersma
> > <richard.broersma@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Simon Riggs
> <simon@2ndquadrant.com> 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Not somewhat, completely. Most of the "teachers" we have are already
> getting paid to work on PostgreSQL. There are some exceptions of
> coursebut if you look at the list of people that are qualified to
> actuallyreview code, they are getting paid *for PostgreSQL*.
>
> Now, that isn't to say you don't bring up a good point, you do. I
> thinkit may be worthwhile to find a way to also compensate mentors
> but as you
> say the goal here is encourage people to get involved. However
> there is
> the underlying goal of educating future PostgreSQL contributors, and
> let's face it --- reviewing code sucks and money is a great motivator
> (especially in today's economy or if you are a starving student).
>
> >   And I actually kind of
> > agree with David Fetter.  Aside from the scenario he mentioned
> (people> who don't get paid stop volunteering, a phenomenon that
> has been
> > documented to occur in other contexts),
>
> You have people that are in it for the money. There is nothing wrong
> with that. Hopefully through this grant they will gain enough
> skill and
> public notice to pick up a job where they might be able to give
> back to
> the community on a paid basis (probably not, but maybe).
>
> If people stop volunteering cause there is no money, then we care why?
> They are likely not vested in the community anyway. Either way, the
> mission has been accomplished. They were paid to be educated and learn
> the review/commitfest process, they did so. If they wish to move on,
> that's up to them.
>
> Do we want them to stay? Of course! However, I fail how to see the
> concern has anything to do with the grant process.
>
> >  there's also the problem that
> > people might sign up to get the money but then do a lousy job.
>
> Well that is the risk we all face and if the mentor feedback was that
> the person did a lousy job (let's assume they were just lazy, not that
> they tried really hard but weren't up to the task), then they
> would risk
> ever receiving future grants.
>
> >  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.
>
> I think anyone who is going to make it through a grant process
> specifically for this purpose is going to have some intrinsic
> motivationbeyond money. We aren't talking about shelling out 50k here.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
> --
> PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
> Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
> Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
> http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:49 AM,  <ghatpande@vsnl.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to be Mentor for Funded Reviewers. My mission will be:
> 1)      We are empowered to create a better world together.
> 2)      Together we co-create our existence.
> 3)      Together we make Postgresql project a success.
> I am looking for long and fruitful association with Postgresql.
>
> I will require to get training in technical, functional and culture of postgresql.
>
> Pl let me know, if you decide positively.
>
> Regards,
> Vijay.

I guess it's not up to me anyway, but this seems a bit odd considering
that I can't recall you ever reviewing a patch yourself.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company