Peter Kasting wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Stuart Morgan <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> If we end up actually having four at a time that seems likely to be >> worse than two: either four people are doing nothing but sheriffing, >> which there is probably not enough work for, or all four people are >> more likely to think that someone else is probably watching and they >> can do something else.
I didn’t see Stuart’s original message, so I don’t know if there was more context, but I agree with what he’s saying here. In my experience, sheriffing is a one-person job, except we want that one person to be able to take a break or have lunch or have someone to fall back on when there are compound problems. I think it’s actually pretty rare for there to be more than three things wrong at a time, and usually when there are that many wrong, they didn’t all go bad simultaneously. It’s a one-person job, but it’s more than a full-time job, so we schedule two. Recently, there have been a few cases where people on the schedule couldn’t sheriff and didn’t arrange for a replacement. Things have gotten really bad when this happened, and for that reason alone, I’d support going to three. I also agree that going three months between shifts means that you might lose touch with how to do it effectively. Maybe we’ve got enough people now that we don’t need to sheriff for two days at a time. Maybe we can move from two sheriffs for two days to three for one. I’m not terribly motivated by any of the time zone policies, because I haven't seen this as a significant source of problems. Mark -- Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
