Tenure track advice?

Everyone on blogosphere seems to be discussing "how to get tenure" topics
(see here, here and here).

Now, I have no advice for anyone and I don't pretend to know much about the process. A lot of it seems like a black box, or a meatgrinder of sorts - some stuff goes in, then something mysterious happens, then something else comes out.

But here's my thoughts on the process: first off, it really depends on the type of department we are talking about. A lot of blogs seem to mix everything together in tenure=tenure=tenure=tenure. Obviously, requirements for tenure in history or computer sciences may be very different from those in physics. Condensed matter physics experiment may be different from astrophysics or string theory. Community college or liberal arts college may be different from research oriented university, and top 10 department may be different from department ranked #89. For example, in some departments publishing 4 papers in low-key journals over 6 years, would be considered worthy of tenure. In others, publishing 60 papers with a large fraction in Nature, Science and PRL is not enough for some reason.

1. Funding: In most research-oriented departments, funding is the key - having a lot of funding allows someone like me to accomplish other things (large group, solid publication record, etc.). Completely and utterly failing in this category is very difficult to compensate for.

2. Publications: this is next on the list - it's hard to argue against the solid publication record, and it's also difficult to compensate for poor publication record in other categories. There are multiple parts to publication record - roughly separated into "quality" and "quantity", more on this later. A large part of success in terms of publication record can be traced back to success in getting funding.

3. Reputation of being world-class. Since department solicits letters from outside experts, it is important to have good reputation in the field. A lot of it comes from publications, which can in turn be traced to funding. The easiest thing to do is simply do good science.
It may also be helpful to keep in contact with people who are experts in the field (attend conferences, workshops etc.), and it may be unwise to piss them off (a general rule that applies to everyone - including collaborators, department colleagues, editors and referees, grant managers etc.) In other words, it's important to be famous but that "fame" should be good fame, rather than bad fame.

4. Niceness: Making sure that most colleagues are on your side. No matter how good a scientist you are, it doesn't matter if most people in the department don't want you as their colleague.

5. Management skills: This includes being a good advisor and mentor to graduate students. If you are not a good manager, there will be less publications and more grant money spent for less results. Also, good students will not want to join your group. But it's somewhat tangential.

6. Teaching and service: In my department the chair openly advises new faculty that teaching doesn't really matter, as long as you are not terrible at it. Basically, if you fail one or several of criteria 1-4, it doesn't matter how good of a teacher you are. If you ace criteria 1-4 but suck at teaching, most will consider the situation "fixable" with some teaching training. Same goes for service - even though junior faculty are not put in charge of anything terribly important anyways. However, most people who are ambitious enough to get funded, publish a lot and run good research groups are rarely bad teachers, and are conscientious about teaching and service. Conscientious, that's the right word to describe it.

I am not sure what the right balance between 1-6 above, or if I am missing anything. Perhaps wiser older readers can comment. Right now my ever-evolving tenure evaluation system looks like food pyramid, with funding, publication and reputation forming the foundation (vegetables, fruits and grains), and the rest being the icing on the cake (literally: sweets, ice cream etc.). Being exceptionally good at 4-6 is no good if you are merely in the middle of the pack in 1-3. On the other hand, being exceptional in 1-3 will help to overcome some (but not the most egregious) deficiencies in 4-6. In that sense, 1-3 are primary parameters, while 4-6 are tie-breakers.

Of course, your mileage may vary, and the criteria outlined above are suitable for experimental condensed matter physicists in a primarily research-oriented department. In small liberal arts colleges the criteria may be reversed, with teaching, service and overall niceness taking precedence over research component.