Core Platform Sub-department

Vision

Offer enterprise-grade operational experience of GitLab products from streamlined deployment and maintenance, disaster recovery, secure search and discoverability, to high availability, scalability, and performance.

Mission

Core Platform focuses on improving our capabilities and metrics in the following areas:

• Database
• Database Reliability
• Distribution:Build
• Distribution:Deploy
• Geo
• Gitaly
• Cloud Connector
• Global Search
• Tenant Scale

All Team Members

The following people are permanent members of teams that belong to the Core Platform Sub-department:

Database

Name	Role
Alex Ives	Backend Engineering Manager, Database
Diogo Frazão	Senior Backend Engineer, Database
Jon Jenkins	Senior Backend Engineer, Database
Krasimir Angelov	Staff Backend Engineer, Database
Leonardo da Rosa	Backend Engineer, Database
Matt Kasa	Staff Backend Engineer, Database
Prabakaran Murugesan	Senior Backend Engineer, Database
Simon Tomlinson	Staff Backend Engineer, Database

Database Reliability

Name	Role
Rick Mar	Engineering Manager, Database Reliability
Alexander Sosna	Senior Database Reliability Engineer
Biren Shah	Senior Database Reliability Engineer
Rafael Henchen	Senior Database Reliability Engineer

Distribution:Build

Name	Role
Sissi Yao	Backend Engineering Manager, Distribution:Build
Andrew Patterson	Senior Distribution Engineer, Distribution:Build
Balasankar 'Balu' C	Senior Distribution Engineer, Distribution:Build
Dmitry Makovey	Senior Distribution Engineer, Distribution:Build
Dustin Collins	Distribution Engineer, Distribution:Build
Ryan Egesdahl	Senior Backend Engineer, Distribution:Build
Robert Marshall	Senior Distribution Engineer, Distribution:Build

Distribution:Deploy

Name	Role
Peter Lu	Backend Engineering Manager, Distribution:Deploy
Clemens Beck	Distribution Engineer, Distribution:Deploy
Hossein Pursultani	Senior Distribution Engineer, Distribution:Deploy
Jason Plum	Staff Distribution Engineer, Distribution:Deploy
João Alexandre Prado Tavares Cunha	Senior Distribution Engineer, Distribution:Deploy
Jon Doveston	Distribution Engineer, Distribution:Deploy
Mitch Nielsen	Senior Distribution Engineer, Distribution:Deploy

Geo

Name	Role
Juan Silva	Engineering Manager, AI-Powered:Duo Chat
Dillon Wheeler	Backend Engineer, AI-powered:Duo Chat
Eva Kadlecová	Backend Engineer, AI-powered:Duo Chat
Jannik Lehmann	Senior Frontend Engineer, AI-powered:Duo Chat
Lesley Razzaghian	Backend Engineer, AI-powered:Duo Chat
Mark Chao	Senior Backend Engineer, AI-powered:Duo Chat
Tetiana Chupryna	Senior Backend Engineer, AI-powered:Duo Chat

Gitaly

Name	Role
Andras Horvath	Manager, Engineering, Gitaly
Ahmad Sherif	Senior Site Reliability Engineer
Emily Chui	Senior Backend Engineer, Gitaly
James Liu	Senior Backend Engineer, Gitaly
Justin Tobler	Senior Backend Engineer, Gitaly
Patrick Steinhardt	Staff Backend Engineer, Gitaly
Quang-Minh Nguyen	Staff Backend Engineer, Gitaly and Tenant Scale
Sami Hiltunen	Staff Backend Engineer, Gitaly
Will Chandler	Senior Backend Engineer, Gitaly

Global Search

Name	Role
Changzheng Liu	Backend Engineering Manager, Global Search
Dmitry Gruzd	Staff Backend Engineer, Global Search
John Mason	Senior Backend Engineer, Global Search
Madelein van Niekerk	Backend Engineer, Global Search
Ravi Kumar	Backend Engineer, Global Search
Siddharth Dungarwal	Backend Engineer, Global Search
Terri Chu	Staff Backend Engineer, Global Search
Tomáš Bulva	Senior Frontend Engineer, Global Search

Cloud Connector

Name	Role
Paul John Phillips	Backend Engineering Manager, Cloud Connector
Aleksei Lipniagov	Senior Backend Engineer, Cloud Connector
Matthias Käppler	Staff Backend Engineer, Cloud Connector
Nikola Milojevic	Senior Backend Engineer, Cloud Connector
Roy Zwambag	Backend Engineer, Cloud Connector

Tenant Scale

Name	Role
Arturo Herrero	Engineering Manager, Tenant Scale
Abdul Wadood	Senior Backend Engineer, Tenant Scale
Alex Pooley	Staff Backend Engineer, Tenant Scale
Bojan Marjanović	Senior Backend Engineer, Data Stores:Tenant Scale
Manoj Memana Jayakumar	Senior Backend Engineer, Tenant Scale
Omar Qunsul	Backend Engineer, Tenant Scale
Peter Hegman	Senior Frontend Engineer, Tenant Scale
Rutger Wessels	Senior Backend Engineer, Tenant Scale

Stable Counterparts

The following members of other functional teams are our stable counterparts:

Name	Role
Achilleas Pipinellis	Senior Technical Writer, Core Platform
Joshua Lambert	Director of Product Management, Core Platform
Grant Young	Staff Software Engineer in Test, Core Platform:Distribution
Kassandra Svoboda	Manager, Quality Engineering, Core Platform & SaaS Platform
Nick Westbury	Senior Software Engineer in Test, Core Platform:Geo
Vishal Patel	Software Engineer in Test, Core Platform:Systems

How We Work

Dashboards

Weekly Async Updates (No Status Update In Meetings)

In order to embody GitLab CREDIT values, we take team status update to async. Instead of reporting on status in meetings, Directors, Senior Engineering Managers, Engineering Managers provide weekly async updates. The content of these updates may vary week over week but generally cover:

1. Team projects, priorities, KPIs, OKRs
2. Other priorities (e.g. Working Groups, FCLs, special initiatives, etc.)
3. Highlights & Accomplishments
4. Announcements & topics of interest to those reading the report

We use issues to communicate status asynchronously. The reporting issues reside in Core Platform Status Update project. There are two types of report issues - issues for each group, stage, and Director; summary issues for each week and month for quick access. The creation of these issues is automated by scripts and a cron job in the same project. The summary issues are also updated regularly by the same cron job to pull the latest together.

To make a weekly async update

Engineering managers are encouraged to make as many updates as needed throughout the week.

1. Open the weekly issue for your team, for example Database.
2. Edit the issue description and apply the issue template group-weekly-status.
3. Fill in the content in the issue description.

To review Core Platform weekly async updates

1. All issues with the ~Core Platform::Weekly-Update label are summarized in weekly and monthly issues, for example W23 Core Platform Sub-Dept Status Summary (2022-06-12 - 2022-06-18), M6 Enablement Sub-Dept Status Summary (Jun 2022).
2. You are encouraged to comment and ask questions in weekly async update issues. This provides useful feedback to the author and opportunities to collaborate.

Benefits of reporting and reviewing status async vs. synchronously in meetings

1. Collaboration - By sharing announcements, achievements, goals, and plans we are empowering team members with the information they need to make sound decisions and succeed in their roles.
2. Results - Async updates provide an important channel for sharing accomplishments and progress.
3. Efficiency - Expecting each team member to poll for the status they need is extremely inefficient and becomes more inefficient as the organization grows. By using a Publish Subscribe model we are able to share information much more efficiently.
4. Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging - Async status is more inclusive of team members across timezones. Not every team member will be able to make a sync meeting (due to timezone or other factors) but everyone can participate in an async update.
5. Iteration - Taking the time to checkpoint where we are at each week prompts the author and readers to consider ways to iterate and to reflect on incremental progress.
6. Transparency - Sharing information in a consistent, accessible way increases transparency and reduces the threshold for team members to contribute.

Cross-group Frontend Development

The nature of the work primarily done by most Core Platform groups calls for backend heavy roadmaps and backlogs. This means that frontend (FE) development work can be “stop-and-go” and typically does not warrant the need for a full-time FE developer assigned to those groups. However, when work does come up it can be overwhelming for the group in question, or they may not have the necessary FE development skills to complete the task.

To address this need, the Core Platform sub-department has established a cross-group frontend development process. The objective is to have extra frontend engineering capacity readily available to help all Core Platform groups with frontend development work overload while avoiding going through formal borrow requests and their process overhead. This also has the added benefit of having some level of technical oversight that supports a consistent frontend architecture across groups.

List of frontend collaborations:

The frontend roadmap items above are broken down into specific epics and issues, and they can also be labelled with Core Platform-FE tracked in the Core Platform Frontend Backlog board.

Increasing Efficiency through Documenting Decisions

Documenting development decisions is another way to increase efficiency. These decisions can be either in an issue explicitly stating that we will not work on this issue, the product category page for your group or a more formal decision log in your group’s section of the handbook. Whatever your chosen desitination, each group should try to maintain a single source of truth for the decisions. A recent example (without mentioning specific product name) had a development team researching an open source product to accelerate development time only to find out later that this research had been previously completed and the product was eliminated from consideration. If this decision had been discoverable via documentation or issue it would have saved precious development time.

We have started creating decision logs to benefit our internal development team as well as our greater GitLab community. It is up to each group to determine the best location for decision logs to be discoverable. For example, the Database team has a decision log for Sharding GitLab with CitusDB in the Core Platform/Database section of the handbook and a decision log for the Sharding Working Group in the working group section of the handbook.

For issues, a clear decision is when an issue is successfully closed. However, if an issue is closed because we “won’t do it” it may not be immediately clear. We are adopting the ~won't do label for those issues. Often the pattern is to just stash these issues in the ~backlog. This can be misleading to those watching the issue and frustrating to the original author, especially if they are a community contributor. When we apply a won't do label to an issue, we are making a clear decision. If there is no pushback on the won't do label then we made the right decision. If there is pushback and we need to reprioritize the issue, then that is a good outcome as well.

How Do We Interview Candidates

We hold our bar high when it comes to hiring. Our goal is to hire the best candidates who will make GitLab successful meanwhile ensuring that the candidates are also set up for success at GitLab. With that in mind, our interview panels consist of a minimum of 4 interviewers (a.k.a. 4 scorecards), and there is no upper bound if needed. However, typically it won’t go beyond 6 interviewers in total. Our interview panels are designed so that multiple data points are available from different interviewers for a specific factor, such as technical competency. This lets us confidently make decisions by cross referencing interview feedback in order to avoid the risk of single data source.

To bring the best possible candidate experience and stay competitive, we schedule all interviews at once and try to fit all in a small time window. This means the interviews are not serial and the scheduling of an interview doesn’t depend on the outcome of another one. On the other hand, we will give candidates advanced notice that the interview process can halt at any time and we will notify them if the case. This is to respect the candidates’ time when we believe the candidate is a better fit for other opportunities.

Individual Contributors

1. Technical Assessment Interview
   1. Typically the general frontend, backend, full-stack, or Go technical assessment
   2. The Distribution team has designed a technical assessment specific to their needs, as the above does not apply to its domain.
2. Peer Team Member Interview
   1. Typically a behavioral interview with team members whom the candidates will work with
   2. An additional vertical domain technology drilldown
   3. A combination of both
3. Hiring Manager Interview
4. Skip-level Manager Interview
   1. A Senior Manager or a Director
   2. A Senior Manager or Director from another section if a Senior Managers or Director from Core Platform is not available.
5. Product Manager Interview (Optional - see Additional Guidelines)
   1. By optional, the Hiring Manager and their counterpart Product Manager can decide together whether Product Manager is invited to the interview panel
   2. If the Product Manager is on the panel, the interview must be consistently held for all candidates
6. Other interviews if needed - below are some but not limit to example scenarios that necessitate additional interviews
   1. Additional information is needed for any item required for the scorecards
   2. More clarification/drilldown to the answers that candidates provided
   3. Hiring a Staff and above engineer

Additional Guidelines:

1. There must be at least one behavioral style interview that is administered by another IC. This could be another engineer on the team or a Product Manager, for example. Regardless of who conducts this interview, we still want to ensure there are at least 2 scorecards from engineers.
   1. Other teams who would like to adopt this consolidation approach can follow this additional guideline.
2. When the Technical Assessment and Peer Team Member Interview are separate, the hiring manager can feel free to determine how many engineers are invited to each interview as long as a minimum of 2 engineers will provide independent feedback of technical assessments.
3. More about the Product Manager interview
   1. The Product Manager interview is optional for Intermediate candidates
   2. The Product Manager interview is highly encouraged for Senior candidates
   3. The Product Manager interview is required for Staff and above candidates

Engineering Managers

1. Hiring Manager Interview
2. Peer Manager Interview - an EM who will be the peer of the candidate. Usually, it is an Engineering Manager within the same Stage or who collaborates closely with this role
3. Team Member Interview - an individual contributor who will report to this role
4. Skip-level Manager Interview - if the hiring manager is a Senior Manager, the Director will be invited. If the hiring manager is a Director, the VP of Development or a Director from another section will be invited
5. Product Manager Interview - the counterpart product manager
6. Other interviews if needed - when the interview team finds out they need additional data for a particular topic(s), where the topic can be any item required for the scorecards or more clarification/drilldown to the answers that candidates provided. For Engineering Manager roles, it can also include additional skip-level manager interviews to provide additional input

Requirements for Qualified Candidates

1. There are at least two Strong Yes scorecards, excluding the recruiting call
2. All must-haves assessed and positive (Yes or Strong Yes)
3. Majority (e.g. 5 out of 9) of nice-to-haves assessed and positive
4. Thumb-down scorecard must be explicitly addressed in Justification
5. Any previous rejections (from this role or other roles) explicitly addressed in Justification
6. Any red flag must be explicitly addressed in Justification
7. Justification scorecard must be written by the Hiring Manager
8. Justification scorecard must score must-haves and nice-to-haves the same way as required in #2 and #3. The ratings should reflect the hiring manager’s evaluation of the candidate based on all feedback. They are not an average of scores given by the interview panel.

Software Subscriptions

The Core Platform teams leverage the following software or SaaS services to deliver our products. For general information of procurement, checkout the procurement team page. For procurement questions, bring to #procurement. To make new Purchase Order (PO), create a new procurement issue.

Internal Opportunities Pilot

At GitLab, we encourage team members to explore their interests in other domains and generally support moves between teams. This helps with team member retention and career development. It can also help the receiving team gain valuable exposure to other parts of the product. However, we don’t have a well-defined process to connect interested team members with available opportunities. For example, sometimes we execute borrow requests where specific engineers are requested for assignment and there is no opportunity for other engineers to express interest. We can encourage engineers interested in a move to look at job postings. But there could be other opportunities for temporary assignments or exchanges if we had an overview of interest across the organization.

We are piloting a process within Core Platform to help team members interested in exploring different teams. This process is applicable to temporary assignments, i.e. Rapid Actions, Borrows, Internship and mutual interests of a temporary exchange between 2 individuals. Other assignment changes such as Realignment and new job openings are out of scope.

1. A team member can express their interest in other domains either to their direct manager or skip-level manager. If there is already a job opening in their area of interest, we can encourage them to apply following the internal hiring process.
2. In the Core Platform staff meeting agenda, managers will highlight team members who have expressed interest. Their names will be kept confidential, but we will provide details about what areas they are interested in.
3. If other managers have a potential opportunity for a given team member, they can connect with the team member’s manager or skip-level manager. An opportunity may be a temporary opening such as a borrow request or another team member who may be interested in an exchange. Ultimately, any proposed moves are detailed in an issue with clear terms and reviewed and agreed by the following stakeholders:
   1. Giving team’s Product Manager and Engineering Manager
   2. Receiving team’s Product Manager and Engineering Manager if they are part of Core Platform
   3. Director of Product Management and Director of Engineering

The following conditions are followed when initiating the process:

1. The applying candidate’s last performance rating was Performing and there is no ongoing performance concerns at the time of application.
2. The length of duration is what is defined by the Rapid Action and Borrow requests. For Internship, it is typically 6 weeks to 3 months.
3. At any time, the maximum concurrent temporary assignments cannot exceed 2 individuals for the roles within Core Platform. Note that there is no limit to roles for Rapid Actions and Borrows of company priority initiatives.
4. Other specific requirements of each temporary arrangement, for example a condition of Internship says ‘If your manager has coverage, you can spend a percentage of your time working (through an ‘Internship’) with another team.’

View page source - Edit this page - please contribute.