- WLUG - wlug.mailman3.com

Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters

by Clint Moyer

I don't feel there's a need to ban job postings altogether. Andy's method seems more than reasonable, though I'd suggest that ANY such posting get the go-ahead from Andy or Frank regardless of the poster's tenure here. I can't think of a reason why such a requirement would be objectionable to anyone. Clint ---- Frank Sweetser <fs(a)WPI.EDU> wrote: ============= My thoughts on the whole incident revolve around the fact that more than anything else, WLUG - including the mailing list - is a community explicitly defined as a place where linux enthusiasts can get together. The whole topic of job postings is already a little bit of a grey area, but so far they'd all been either posted directly by people in WLUG, or sent to Andy and relayed to the list. This has worked at least well enough that nobody complained. In this case, however, things went differently. The user quite obviously went through the trouble of signing up for the mailing list with the sole purpose of being able to send an email that was part job posting and part recruiter advertisement. This, in my mind (and quite a few others, based on the responses) crossed over the line. There are plenty of well established sites online for employers and employees to look for each other, and I doubt that anyone in this group would have any trouble finding them. So far it hasn't been an issue, but I would hate to see the signal in the mailing list get diluted with the noise of recruiters. If this comes up much more, I 'd vote for either relegating job postings to a dedicated page on the web site, or just banning them alltogether, depending on how the rest of the group feels. Your humble list moderator, Frank _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

June 19, 2007

Re: [Wlug] JOB - Senior Operations Engineer - Boston, MA

by Aaron Haviland

Keith Wright wrote, on Jun 19, 2007 at 00:12 EDT: > I am tempted to leave it there. True Lamers > will never know who they are, but here are > some guides to How To Be A Lamer. > > 1. Never come to a meeting. > 2. Subscribe to the list for the sole > purpose of posting your advertisement. > 3. Fail the Turing Test by using cliches > to indicate that your message was > auto-generated by a computer or marketing > manager. > 4. Do not write any introductory remarks > that might show your message is intended > for the WLUG list, rather than every list > in known space. Gee, Keith, I hope this isn't an OR list. I'm never able to make a meeting as I work evenings! -- Aaron Haviland 34 Wayne Ave, Dudley, MA home: [508] 943 - 7974

June 19, 2007

Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters

by Frank Sweetser

My thoughts on the whole incident revolve around the fact that more than anything else, WLUG - including the mailing list - is a community explicitly defined as a place where linux enthusiasts can get together. The whole topic of job postings is already a little bit of a grey area, but so far they'd all been either posted directly by people in WLUG, or sent to Andy and relayed to the list. This has worked at least well enough that nobody complained. In this case, however, things went differently. The user quite obviously went through the trouble of signing up for the mailing list with the sole purpose of being able to send an email that was part job posting and part recruiter advertisement. This, in my mind (and quite a few others, based on the responses) crossed over the line. There are plenty of well established sites online for employers and employees to look for each other, and I doubt that anyone in this group would have any trouble finding them. So far it hasn't been an issue, but I would hate to see the signal in the mailing list get diluted with the noise of recruiters. If this comes up much more, I 'd vote for either relegating job postings to a dedicated page on the web site, or just banning them alltogether, depending on how the rest of the group feels. Your humble list moderator, Frank

June 19, 2007

Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters

by Bill Mills-Curran

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:42:22PM -0400, Andy Stewart wrote: <snip> > 3) I opened the topic for discussion because I want to be sure that > folks who are normally less vocal on the group mailing list have a > chance to air their opinions. > > 4) The end result of these discussions should be posted on the website > as a group policy so guests to our mailing list will understand what we > expect of them. > > Thanks, > > Andy <snip> It seems to me that much of the negative response was due to the type of job being offered. We all dislike the massive advertising on the web (even though it helps support much of the free access we enjoy), so members of the responded to that (I believe). Part the cost of having an open, free-flowing discussion list is being open to occasional content that we dislike. As long as it's only occasional, I say we live with it. If it becomes excessive, then we deal with it. I'm not even sure there was really much wrong with the posting, other than the strong marketing flavor of the posting ("we're great; work for us"). I don't think the posting was worth a flame, much less new posting rules. Bill

June 19, 2007

Re: [Wlug] JOB - Senior Operations Engineer - Boston, MA

by Keith Wright

> From: "Tal Cohen" <wlug(a)cohen123.com> > > What are the guidelines for posting > a relevant job opening to this group? Don't be a lamer. I am tempted to leave it there. True Lamers will never know who they are, but here are some guides to How To Be A Lamer. 1. Never come to a meeting. 2. Subscribe to the list for the sole purpose of posting your advertisement. 3. Fail the Turing Test by using cliches to indicate that your message was auto-generated by a computer or marketing manager. 4. Do not write any introductory remarks that might show your message is intended for the WLUG list, rather than every list in known space. There are, of course, many other possible lame actions. Note that I have no actual power over any list messages other than my own, and so my opinions are worthless except in so far as others agree with them. -- Keith

June 19, 2007

Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters

by Andy Stewart

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mike Leo wrote: > Does a job posting really warrant this much discussion? Hi Mike, Normally, no, but this subject has come up before, and I'd like to settle it. > > I know I haven't participated much lately, but the emails discussing the > spam job posting have been more spam-like than the original possible > spam posting. > > spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggsspam. > > Anyway, I also posted a job posting earlier today. Hope I did not break > the rules. I had no problem with your post. Later, Andy - -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group (http://www.wlug.org) Chelmsford Linux Meetup Group (http://linux.meetup.com/393) Amateur Radio: KB1OIQ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdyigHl0iXDssISsRAjjaAJ4hUy5DyPm+W+KMaIlIPZGWFgCWKQCeKB0N jLDlWHyrQIYtUo2Cz8+qMn8= =WdEA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

June 19, 2007

Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters

by Mike Leo

Does a job posting really warrant this much discussion? I know I haven't participated much lately, but the emails discussing the spam job posting have been more spam-like than the original possible spam posting. spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggsspam. Anyway, I also posted a job posting earlier today. Hope I did not break the rules. Mike ----- Original Message ---- From: Chuck Anderson <cra(a)WPI.EDU> To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 8:25:44 PM Subject: Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:23:39PM -0400, Andy Stewart wrote: > In the event that a recruiter attempts to post without first becoming a > group member, I have full trust in the list moderator's judgment to > implement our group policy. The problem in this case was that the user subscribed to the list, and then immediately sent the JOB posting. So he was already a "group member". _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

June 19, 2007

Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters

by Andy Stewart

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chuck Anderson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:23:39PM -0400, Andy Stewart wrote: >> In the event that a recruiter attempts to post without first becoming a >> group member, I have full trust in the list moderator's judgment to >> implement our group policy. > > The problem in this case was that the user subscribed to the list, and > then immediately sent the JOB posting. So he was already a "group > member". Yes, and I have a couple of thoughts on that. 1) I believe this is the first time a recruiter has done this, but I could be wrong. 2) We as a group have every right to determine what is acceptable email on the list. In my opinion, if any group member abuses the list, they should be first asked to stop and then have their privileges revoked if they continue to abuse the list. The post did mention Linux, it did have "JOB" in the subject, however, the recruiter did not ask permission to use our list. Is that sufficient cause for immediate revocation from the list? Perhaps so, perhaps not - you tell me. I don't recall anybody asking this particular recruiter to stop doing what he did. We should revoke with care. If done harshly, it could damage the group reputation. 3) I opened the topic for discussion because I want to be sure that folks who are normally less vocal on the group mailing list have a chance to air their opinions. 4) The end result of these discussions should be posted on the website as a group policy so guests to our mailing list will understand what we expect of them. Thanks, Andy - -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group (http://www.wlug.org) Chelmsford Linux Meetup Group (http://linux.meetup.com/393) Amateur Radio: KB1OIQ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdyZuHl0iXDssISsRAqF1AJwKnQMShnVbgX0A1x5ebbL3pUcESACfTn0H pQOtgCZU7i/Zbd/muSg7r20= =2oDQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

June 19, 2007

Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters

by Chuck Anderson

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:23:39PM -0400, Andy Stewart wrote: > In the event that a recruiter attempts to post without first becoming a > group member, I have full trust in the list moderator's judgment to > implement our group policy. The problem in this case was that the user subscribed to the list, and then immediately sent the JOB posting. So he was already a "group member".

June 19, 2007

Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters

by Andy Stewart

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andy Stewart wrote: > In summary, I propose the following for your consideration: > > a) Recruiters who wish to post to the WLUG mailing list need to request > permission to do so, and if granted, preface the subject with "JOB" so > people can filter accordingly. As acting president, I presume that the > permission would be granted by me. I just thought of something. When a person who is not a list member attempts to post a message to the group, the email is sent to the list moderator for approval. This is currently Frank Sweetser (and I think Chuck Anderson, also). In the event that a recruiter attempts to post without first becoming a group member, I have full trust in the list moderator's judgment to implement our group policy. Later, Andy - -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group (http://www.wlug.org) Chelmsford Linux Meetup Group (http://linux.meetup.com/393) Amateur Radio: KB1OIQ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdyILHl0iXDssISsRAgNmAJsGz/nTV+HCanWwh3V/ZZQ38r7M/QCfZXtD GuE/sWwnwCdq4pIDU7/k4LQ= =UUDG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

June 19, 2007