[conspire] Fwd: Re: [sf-lug] Looking for a Senior MySQL administrator in San Francisco

[Rick Moen]

Quoting jim stockford (jim at well.com):

> when we have a larger member set or when our member set makes a larger
> noise, then we'll know the policy--in the fashion of running out in
> front of the parade.

Again, you _do_ have a policy -- by default.  It's just not documented,
creating an ambiguous situation, as witness the "I hope it's OK"
prefatory comments by two recent jobs posters.

What you're saying is that you're OK with posters repeatedly stumbling
over the matter, because you're afraid the membership will feel constrained
by even a tentatively worded policy.  (Boy, you don't have a lot of
confidence in them, eh?)



> did you witness the bayPIGgies commotion after Marilyn took leadership
> and raised the issue of name change? My take is that the topic was
> better left alone.

The difference is that lack of a "Why we're called BayPIGgies and don't
want to change our name" FAQ didn't give posters any problems.  (And,
yes, I was aware of the squabble, in as much as my wife Deirdre founded
and named the group.)

> There's no real problem with job postings at this
> point, so no need for policy statements.

I note in passing that you are stating a non-sequitur conclusion.  Why
would you assume that a policy statement would be helpful only if job
postings are a problem?  Have you paid _no_ attention whatsoever to my
earlier analysis?