On Wednesday 20 December 2006 19:34, Dinesh Joshi wrote: > I am sorry to be a bit harsh here but when a candidate does apply > he needs to satisfy all the requirements. NO EXCUSES should be > entertained. Afterall, where there is a will, there is a way. So if > the requirement is ODF, it is. If you can't satisfy it, its your > loss.
> Secondly, I seriously dont agree with the line of thought that > .docs are evil. Yes they are evil in a way but be professional here > people. What is more important? Getting a good candidate or holding > on to some stupid detail such as whether he/she has used ODF or > FOSS to create his resume. Its a resume. Thats ALL. You discard a > .doc resume, you lose a good person. And I dont think I need to > remind the potential employers here that there is a SHORTAGE of > good, skilled people. Its the employers loss if he discards it > without even looking at it. In THIS case the requirement of odf would actually help weed out the chaff. Infact one should compulsorily specify odf for a foss opening. Talking of shortages, qualification in most places is prescence at the interview. Ability to read and write is a definite plus. Engineers who were in a trance thru their engineering and dont know a diode from an iode and want the moon are the norm. So candidates who think netmask is the new krishh thingy to wear at the newyr ball and never heard of odf or standards would be common. And i think in the light of the exacting standards of this discussion which competes closely with the quality of the object of everyone's ire (or luv thereof) - the .doc - the op was right after all. In order that we do not overtake the said object please dont reply to this mail. All is forgiven .doc pls post resume in anything legible. -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
