Well said. On 27/01/2016 11:35 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2016-01-27 16:07, Andrew Stuart wrote: > >> I’m curious to know why the limitations on job postings from recruiters? >> > > Hi, Andrew. > > Thanks for asking. Also thanks for engaging the Python community as a > member, not as an outsider. I liked your Pycon Au presentation last year, > hope to see more from you in the future. > > Since I wrote the policy, and it's a bit ambiguous despite many voices > agreeing on its main thrust, here's my rationale for writing it: > > The Python Users Group is for the benefit of its members. Traffic on the > list has to have perceived benefits to them. > > Others have already spoken to the frustration of mismatched expectations > between posting and interview. But it's also true good recruiters can help > in matching jobs to candidates, if the candidates feel they have control > over their job search, by having enough information as they go in. Cloaked > posts are almost information free. > > Job postings that don't mention the employer nor the salary aren't useful > to MPUG members on the list for the following reasons: > > - people who are already looking for work can already find those same job > postings on seek, monster, etc. [1] > > - people who aren't already looking for work get no benefit, there's very > little incentive to ask about it. > > The only benefit of job postings with no stated employer/salary is to the > recruiters that can get a leg over other recruiters if people apply through > them instead of going through other people. If we said yes to this type of > cloaked postings, we'd get more of them, without any benefit for the > community. > > So really, recruiters per se are not the target of this policy. Postings > with no added value to our constituency are. Nobody has complained when > Planet Innovation, the BOM, Biarri or Medibank (recent examples I remember) > posted help wanted ads, not because they were not via recruiter, but > because posting was informational. > > These are useful help-wanted notices, both to those looking for work and > to those who aren't. We welcome this kind of postings by anyone. In fact, > these are the ones that stick enough that I have told people in my circles > to go talk to these companies if they were looking for work. I don't do > that with cloaked postings. > > I understand this may not have been clear enough, so I will find a better > redaction for the policy and link it to this email message for future > reference. > >> Perhaps if there was a jobs mailing list address then people could >> tune out of the noise by moving the job postings off the main list. >> > > Anybody who wants to start a melbourne-python-jobs mailing list can do it. > Many here might even subscribe to it, or send notices to it if they ever > need someone. Someone has to take on the job. > > Regards, > Javier > > [1] To be fair, search engines are spammier than recruiter emails, which > at least usually write to the mailing list for the programming language and > city fitting the position, while job postings on search engines are often > fishing expeditions mentioning languages that will never be used on the > job, cities that they hope the candidate will move from, etc. Still, the > consensus is that cloaked job postings are not good enough for a community > mailing list. We expect better. > > > _______________________________________________ > melbourne-pug mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug >
_______________________________________________ melbourne-pug mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug
