On 11/08/2013 12:00 PM, Bryan Davis wrote:
I think the second is more consistent with the tenor of the discussion here so far, because in the first case, the coupling between job titles and responsibilities in our community might be too tight to maintain flexibility and openness. It would also recognize that technical leadership doesn't _just_ mean taking on broad architectural responsibilities. So for example development of unique and mission-critical domain expertise might be another way to progress into Sr. II.
I personally think this route (separating the role of architectural leadership from the title/pay band of WMF employees) is the most reasonable way forward.
+1 on separating WMF job titles with community technical leadership positions. This will work best if it applies to the current architects too.
I.E. all three are changed to Principal Platform/Software/Operations Engineers on the WMF side, while remaining architects on the MW side.
I like the "Principal Software Engineer" and "Senior Fellow" suggestions for the WMF part.
Matt Flaschen