Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 HI gang, Tal Cohen wrote:
So, here is a question: What are the guidelines for posting a relevant job opening to this group?
This is a very good question! In general, I personally frown upon random recruiters posting job openings on the WLUG mailing list, especially when they don't have the courtesy of asking permission. Having the list as writable only by list members helps to keep this type of email traffic minimized. However, there have been a couple of recruiters in the past who asked permission prior to posting, which I did grant (John Spencer is one such individual). I specifically asked John to preface his subject with "JOB" or "JOBS" so people could filter accordingly, and he has done what was asked. Also, John's posts have been very Linux relevant IMHO. In the interest of fair disclosure, I've worked with John in the past and my employer has hired people represented by him. I have also had recruiters send the job posting to me, asking me to forward it to the list. If relevant, I forward the post, but sometimes I have deleted them if I thought they were not relevant. Having said all of that, I recognize that this mailing list belongs to all of us and not just to me. At any time, we as a group can choose to change our policy. Admittedly, even if every recruiter who posted asked permission and used the "JOB" subject, the volume of email could become more than we'd like. To date, this has not happened. I have not yet heard anybody complain about a group member posting a relevant job opening for their employer. In today's particular case, I suspect that if the recruiter were informed of our policy, he would be happy to comply. Although it is our email list, how we react on the list is a reflection of the group as a whole. 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. b) Any recruiter who abuses the list by failing to ask permission prior to posting, or by an excessive volume of emails, will be asked to stop (including removal from the membership list if necessary). c) Group members may post relevant job openings as long as they preface the subject with "JOB". I invite constructive discussion on the proposal, and counter proposals if appropriate. 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 iD8DBQFGdxy1Hl0iXDssISsRAuEzAJ9BjH5OEKb2KczS2uST4Y1F4p0VSACcDbNf SShrPI1odk0K9WH68GLiSBA= =jOVI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----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-----
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".
-----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-----
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
On Tuesday 19 June 2007, Bill Mills-Curran wrote:
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.
http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug A thought, the internet is a self righting economy. I am not saying blast people with spambots, but I think it is perfectly fair for everyone not interested in the jobs posted politely respond with a poilte "Not interested" email. A person who subscribes to this list for the sole purpose of send a job req, thinks that it is not rude, well it must not be rude to reply.
A policy that keeps the people who want to go good and right on the right side of the list is a good thing. Personally, I don't mind job posting here, as long as they don't flood the list. Just as people on the phone in line at the grocery store don't think it is rude to be yelling in my ear, should not think it rude when I talk to the person behind them in the line. I don't think a 'No thanks' reply from everyone who was interrupted on this list is rude. Just my grumpy overtired 2 cents Thanks Brian
participants (4)
-
Andy Stewart -
Bill Mills-Curran -
Brian Waite -
Chuck Anderson