[sf-lug] Fwd: Re: +1 sf-lug policies -- please vote
Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu
Sun Feb 17 10:09:51 PST 2008
B) done (forwarded) ;-)
Other "random" suggestions, can tweak wording on policy - most notably
"must" vs. "should". Like RFCs - at least typically - "must" is
mandatory, "should" is (approximately) strongly recommended, but not
necessarily an absolute requirement. Perhaps the existing policy
already has the wiggle room, as it's mostly all "should" and no "must"
(other than implied must not with "No direct Job Postings" and the
Also, perhaps like BAD (http://bad.debian.net/ and specifically
http://bad.debian.net/shotgun_rules.txt) might be useful to use a
particular key string in the subject of Job postings when they are
approved and forwarded to the list - most notably so that those that
don't/do want to see/note them can filter/alert on the string in the
----- Forwarded message from jim stockford <jim at well.com> -----
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:01:07 -0800
From: jim stockford <jim at well.com>
Subject: Re: +1 sf-lug policies -- please vote
To: Michael Paoli <Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu>
i'd like to forward this to the list, may i?
On Feb 16, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Michael Paoli wrote:
> +1 adjust policy
> Many (perhaps even most) employers and potential employers won't (or
> "can't", by their policies or policies of their governing agencies)
> list salaries or salary ranges for open positions / job postings. Many
> will also "just" say DOE (Depending On Experience) or "Market Rate" or
> the like.
> I don't see that "issue", at least in and of itself, as any reason to
> not list/post/forward a job posting/opening information.
More information about the sf-lug