[sf-lug] Possibly interesting data point on jobs postings

jim stockford jim at well.com
Tue May 16 06:34:48 PDT 2006

thank you, sarah, for your chime.

it is not my list, it's our list. i'm not the leader.
when i get email addressed to the leader, i
dutifully forward it to you guys. i sometimes
suspect that sf-lug has no leader (gasp!).

i like wiiiide open. i credit those with more
experience (time put in) and the way they've
developed their attitudes, something to think
about--maybe we'll so develop too.

so far i see no clear clamor one way or the

On May 15, 2006, at 9:56 PM, Sarah Mei wrote:

> I like the job posts I've seen so far (which have only been Beau's).
>> To the extent that LUG mailing lists exist for interaction among 
>> members
>> of the Linux community, the recruiters posting directly to them breaks
>> (or at least dilutes) that model.
> It is, of course, your list to run as you like, but the idea that the
> list has an official model that members must believe in to be welcome
> seems a bit...narrow.
> Besides, the point of groups like this is to, over time, grow the
> linux community beyond its current bounds of mostly programmers and IT
> techs, until it includes people who aren't programmers by trade, maybe
> people like, for example, recruiters.
> Hmm.
> On 5/15/06, Jim Stockford <jim.stockford at gmail.com> wrote:
>> well and interestingly said.
>> I do not recall ever setting anyone's flag to nomail--
>> not one time, certainly not four.
>> as to the recruiter, I think a better metaphor than hawking
>> weiners during the show is that of the "getcher IT jobs
>> here!" commercial interleaved with the kiddy cartoons.
>> For me the occasional job posting is part of the
>> entertainment. That's my view.
>> At the javacat tonight was another view more sympathetic
>> to Rick's: people who post job possibilities to lugs are
>> bottom feeders or worse: looking for IT advice without
>> paying for it.
>> As to the list itself, I count one vitriolically opposed and
>> another on the fence leaning agin' it, with one (me) for it
>> (job postings).
>> Anybody else wants to chime in, please do.
>> On 5/15/06, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>>> Just as a reminder, I'm just the system janitor (and owner) of the
>>> decrepit 1998 VA Research model 500 that hosts this mailing list,
>>> whereas Jim runs the mailing list itself.  Nonetheless, I sometimes 
>>> look
>>> in and give an assist on the technical side (because I like you 
>>> guys).
>>> Among other things, sometimes I use the systemwide Mailman admin
>>> password to look through mailing lists' membership rosters, to spot
>>> anything amiss.  I was doing that, this morning, with SF-LUG's 
>>> roster:
>>> As is sometimes the case, there were several subscribers showing as
>>> having the "nomail" flag set, and with that flag having been set by 
>>> an
>>> administrator rather than the user himself/herself.  (The "nomail" 
>>> flag
>>> means "I still want to be a subscriber, but don't send me any of the
>>> postings for now.")
>>> Usually, this happens because someone noticed recurring non-delivery
>>> messages for that subscriber -- e.g., his/her mail server was down, 
>>> or
>>> was out of disk space, etc.  Those non-deliverability conditions can 
>>> be
>>> transitory, or they can be permanent:  One way to find out is to 
>>> switch
>>> off the flag, and see if the non-deliverability persists.  I tried 
>>> this,
>>> and found that all four of those subscribed addresses appeared to
>>> _still_ be non-deliverable for various reason, e.g., "That username 
>>> does
>>> not exist at this server" [paraphrased].  So, I unsubscribed them.
>>> In the process of doing that, I found one extra anomaly:
>>> "beau at open-source-staffing.com", whom you may recall being the 
>>> extremely
>>> polite and clueful recruiter Beau J. Gould of NYC, is the _one and 
>>> only_
>>> subscriber who's set his _own_ subscription to "nomail".
>>> By no means do I wish in any way to beat up on Mr. Gould:  If all
>>> recruiters were as smart and well-mannered, mailing list 
>>> administration
>>> for LUGs would be much more of a delight, and there would be less 
>>> need
>>> for special "jobs" rules.  (Gould, you may recall, actually was kind
>>> enough to _ask_ before posting a job opening, here.)
>>> My point, instead, is to call attention to why he set that flag:  
>>> Even
>>> this minor paragon among professional recruiters isn't here to
>>> participate.  He has no desire to teach or learn Linux; he's on the
>>> outside of our community by preference.  Nothing wrong with that.  
>>> But
>>> he's set "nomail" in order to preserve his ability to post here in 
>>> the
>>> future (this mailing list being set to subscriber-only posting, like
>>> most others these days), while not being bothered by all this Linux
>>> discussion.
>>> To the extent that LUG mailing lists exist for interaction among 
>>> members
>>> of the Linux community, the recruiters posting directly to them 
>>> breaks
>>> (or at least dilutes) that model.
>>> Any metaphor will distort the truth in one way or the other.  Here's
>>> one, and it definitely has distortive biases:  A LUG mailing list is
>>> like a movie theatre, and Beau Gould is like a concession vendor who
>>> asked permission to hawk hot dogs _inside_ the theatre instead of in 
>>> the
>>> lobby.  And some of us would rather watch the film.  ;->
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug

More information about the sf-lug mailing list