New material for the thisseries is coming more slowly. I am beginning to get into areas where I want tostart posting screen shots of internal Google tools and describe how ourinfrastructure works. This is material that takes longer to develop and alsorequires some scrutiny before being published externally. So in the meantime, Iam pausing to answer some of the questions you've posted in the comments.

I am going to start withLilia (because she likes Neil Young mainly, but also because she can runfurther than me and those two things combine to impress me to no small end) whoasks about SET-SWE conversion and vice-versa and which I have seen the most.There is also the broader question of whether there is a ceiling on the SETcareer path.

SETs and SWEs are on thesame pay scale and virtually the same job ladder. Both roles are essentially100% coding roles with the former writing test code and the latter doingfeature development. From a coding perspective the skill set is a dead match.From a testing perspective we expect a lot more from SETs. But the overlap oncoding makes SETs a great fit for SWE positions and vice versa. Personally Ithink it is a very healthy situation to have conversions. Since I have bothroles reporting to me I can speak from first hand experience that many of mybest coders are former SETs and some of my best testers are former SWEs. Eachis excellent training ground for the other. On my specific team I am even onthe conversions from one role to the other. But I suspect that Google-widethere are more SETs who become SWEs.

Why convert in the firstplace? Well at Google it isn't for the money. It also isn't for the prestige aswe have a lot more SWEs than SETs and it is a lot harder to standout. Thescarcity of our SETs creates somewhat of a mystique about these folk. Who arethese rare creatures who keep our code bases healthy and make our developmentprocess run so smoothly? Actually, most SWEs care more about making the SETshappy so they continue doing what they do. Why would any dev team force aconversion of a great developer from SET to SWE when finding a suitable SETreplacement is so much harder than adding another feature developer? SWEs ain'tthat stupid.

Now pausing before I takeanother hit of the corp kool-aid, let me be honest and say that there are farmore senior SWEs than SETs. Percentage wise we test folk are more outnumberedat the top of the org than at the middle and bottom. But keep in mind thatdevelopers have had a large head start on us. We have developers who have beenat Google since our founding and testers ... well ... less time than that.

Where do TEs fit into thismix? TE is an even newer role than SET but already we have a number climbing tothe Staff ranks and pushing on the senior most positions in the company. Thereis no ceiling, but the journey to the top takes some time.

Raghev among others hasasked about the career path and whether remaining an IC (individualcontributor) is an option over becoming a manager. I have mixed feelings aboutanswering this. As a manager myself, I see the role as one with much honor andyet I hear in your collective voices a hint of why do I have to become a manager?Ok, I admit, Dilbert is funny.

For me, being a manager is achance to impart some of my experience and old-guy judgement on lessexperienced but more technically gifted ICs. The combination of an experiencedmanager's vision and an ICs technical skill can be a fighting force ofincredible power. And yet, why should someone who does not want to manage beforced to do so in order to continue their career advancement?

Well, fortunately, Googledoes not make us choose. Our managers are expected to have IC tasks theyperform. They are expected to be engaged technically and lead as opposed tojust manage. And our ICs are expected to have influence beyond their personalwork area. When you get to the senior/staff positions here you are a leader,period. Some leaders lead more than they manage and some leaders manage morethan they lead.

But either way, the viewfrom the top means that a lot of people are looking to you for direction ...whether you manage them or not.