Add engineering levels documentation

[allthedoll]

Description

This document outlines the engineering levels at FlowFuse, detailing expectations, core dimensions for evaluation, and promotion criteria for engineers.

Related Issue(s)

N/A

Checklist

• I have read the contribution guidelines
• I have considered the performance impact of these changes
• Suitable unit/system level tests have been added and they pass
• Documentation has been updated
• For blog PRs, an Art Request has been created (instructions)

[allthedoll]

Check your names off when you've read this and left any comments, pls.

• @Steve-Mcl
• @hardillb
• @knolleary
• @n-lark
• @cstns
• @andypalmi
• @ppawlowski

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for flowforge-website ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	ec63a94
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/flowforge-website/deploys/69d76eecb1b08e00086ab1e8
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-4720--flowforge-website.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.
Lighthouse	1 paths audited Performance: 85 (🔴 down 4 from production) Accessibility: 81 (no change from production) Best Practices: 100 (no change from production) SEO: 91 (no change from production) PWA: - View the detailed breakdown and full score reports

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[knolleary]

LGTM

For the Performance/Reviews section, it isn't clear who is responsible for the evidence gathering and synthesis. Will engineers be asked to produce a document of some sort, or will it be a manager's task?

[cstns]

Same comment as @knolleary, looking good otherwise

[allthedoll]

@FlowFuse/engineering I completely revamped the last section. Please re-review it as this was suggested by @cstns and @knolleary. @Steve-Mcl and @andypalmi you haven't checked yourselves on my list as having review this at all. 😭

Performance and Reviews

Mid-Quarter Check-Ins

Each quarter includes an informal mid-point check-in between the engineer and manager. The goal is to identify early whether anything is off-track and course-correct before the quarter closes — not to evaluate, but to make sure no one is surprised.

Quarterly Reviews

Quarterly reviews are informal. The manager leads evidence gathering ahead of each conversation, drawing on:

• Completed issues and pull requests (including review comments)
• Geekbot standup history
• Relevant Slack threads and direct messages
• Notes logged during the quarter

The manager synthesizes this into a draft evaluation across the five core dimensions before the review conversation.

In the review itself, the engineer and manager go through the evaluation together. The goal is to make sure nothing meaningful was missed and that the engineer feels accurately and well represented. Engineers should come prepared to flag anything they want to add or clarify.

Annual Reviews

Annual reviews are formal and synthesize evidence from all four quarters of the year.

The manager evaluates sustained scope and impact across dimensions, identifies patterns, and uses this as the basis for compensation and promotion decisions.

What Engineers Should Expect

• Your manager is doing the legwork. Both the engineer and manager flag notable things during the quarter as they happen.
• Reviews are based on observable behavior and documented impact. Impact that shows up as reliability, stability, or prevented problems counts alongside shipped work.
• The review conversation is collaborative. If something feels off, say so.