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

[Rick Moen]

Quoting jim stockford (jim at well.com):

>     come on, Rick. Sure I've read, re-read, and payed
> attention to your suggestions, which I take seriously.
> Of course we have a default policy--anything goes.

I think you're still missing something, despite it having been mentioned
a few times.  Let me explain it a different way.

People don't put statements on Mailman listinfo pages saying
"postings from left-handed Esperanto teachers are welcome", because 
you don't get significant numbers of southpaw Esperantists going around
saying "I'm not sure this posting is appropriate, but...."  However, 
for reasons amply covered elsewhere, recruiters and others posting 
job listings legitimately wonder whether such are welcome on each LUG
discussion forum. 

So, in context, you and the other non-leader leader (who possess the
listinfo password) have decided you like that condition of uncertainty
and (by default) want it to persist.

I'm not complaining; as noted, the group arrives at policies and
practices that suit it.  I'm just noting the fact, and the consequences.
You don't seem to like my doing so, and keep going out of your way to
miss my points:  I'm not entirely clear why.

It's a little vexing (but only a little), because I go to some pains to
be clear in what I say. 

> If the group coalesces on some point of view, the group will have
> determined a policy.

As already has been painstakingly pointed out numerous times, the group
_has_ determined a policy -- by default.  My point is that you have
declined to document that policy where it might do some good, and to
point out the (minor) disadvantages.

> So far a few people have expressed a wish to proscribe against and a
> few people have expressed a wish to allow and most of the membership
> is silent with respect to job postings (I like 'em, and I like the
> rants of the objectors, which I find most educational).

Since you mention it, I personally find both to be mostly noise, and to
distract from the legitimate purposes of a LUG.  But that's a digression
from the main point, which you keep going _way_ out of your way to
ignore:

> As we have not clearly weighed in one way or another, anything goes.

...which you decline to document on your listinfo page, preferring that
each new jobs poster be obliged to figure it out for him or herself.

Thus my point.

In my personal view, I can't help seeing this as being in line with the
tirekicker mentality that pervades much of SF-LUG's membership, Jim:
not really wanting anything new or complex, not really believing in
documentation or learning and advancing (with the bright exception of
your RHCE study group), always revisiting fundamentals over and over,
not wanting to think about old prejudices but insisting on feeling good
and virtuous about them.  On the other hand, it's very California and
probably has broad appeal.