[sf-lug] draft web page changes (transition off Jim ...)

[Michael Paoli]

[back onto list]
On Sun, Jan 4, 2026 at 2:32 PM Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>     A cursory examination of the page brings up two matters.
>     Jim Stockford's name should be removed as he is in no state to deal with other people's problems.
>     My name, Bobbie Sellers, should only be listed by email address and the web page should be
> referenced to authenticate requests for assistance or information.  Both of us should be replaced
> as soon as practicable
>         Thanks for the chance to put my oar in....
>         Good luck to all the LUGs which you are assisting.

So, everybody :-) ...
Who, in addition to Bobbie, who's already stepped up, can and is willing
to step up - as Bobbie apparently wants/needs to only be "temporary"
on that, and other(s) will need to step up, and for fair while now,
Jim is no longer up to the task.

Anyway, Bobbie - let me know how you want your email link to appear
on the web page where it is used.  At present it shows your first and
last name, and links to your email address.  Sounds like you want some
adjustments made on that - let me know exactly how you want that
adjusted.

And Jim ... first the easier bit.
As per my slightly earlier post:
http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/2026q1/016198.html
have created yet another draft for future implementation,
presently at:
https://www.sf-lug.org/index_alpha.html
Note that it is not yet scheduled to be promoted to the main web page.
So, on the web page, Jim is only mentioned in two sections,
as a general SF-LUG contact towards very end of web page,
now removed from the index_alpha.html version.

The other area is the job posting section, where Jim is mentioned
for the contact and processing of that.
So, what do we want to do with that?  Does someone want to
volunteer to step up and handle that processing,
and/or do we want to change the job posting policy and related
text - and if so, that would apply to both the main web page
and the list page:
http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
And note that at present (and for quite some while now),
both are effectively non-operational on what they currently state,
not only Jim not being up for handling such job posting requests,
but I believe also that email address is also no longer functional.
So, however we want to handle that, if nothing else, at least the
email contact for that is long overdue for updating, and we may want
to change the job posting policy.  And, to potentially consider in those
regards, the days of dang near every company/agency/recruiter
repeatedly pelting lists overwhelmingly and repeatedly with job
postings are thankfully long gone.  That doesn't mean zero abuse
exists out there (mostly bots do/try the abuse these days),
but maybe a suitable direct posting policy would
be much simpler and quite feasible to generally deal with, rather
than having all such go via some other person's email for them
to then post it (I know of no other LUG that has such a policy,
though various LUGs do have specific job posting policies,
e.g. anything goes, or limited to must fit certain criteria, or
prohibited except on a separate list for such where they're
allowed (and there, only with certain criteria being met).
Another thing to consider along such lines, e.g. as
Bay Area Debian (BAD) used to do - though not for
job postings, is have very specific criteria for certain
postings (notably meeting announcements).  Something
like that then generally makes it fairly easier for lists
recipients to then use that to filter in/out (by software or
eyeball), what postings they do/don't want to read.
E.g. just food for thought but perhaps a policy something like:
o job postings are allowed, but only if they meet all the criteria below
o Subject: header must begin with "JOB POSTING" (without the quote characters)
o limit of one posting per employer per calendar month (a single
posting may mention more than one job and/or link to multiple jobs)
o each such posted job must at least substantially include Linux
(>=??% of job role/responsibilities)
o work site location(s) must be or primarily include (specific
geographic location(s)) or for remote, must be able to be performed
from said location(s).
o employers/agencies/recruiters violating stated policy may find
themselves and/or entire employer/agency moderated, suspended, or
banned from posting to the list

Also, thinking of simplification, is there even any need/reason to
have job posting policy on the main web page?  What about only having
the
policy on the list page (less to maintain that way, and eliminate
inconsistency issues - doesn't even require someone to be able to
use editor of HTML files to update it on the list page).  Or perhaps
a greatly simplified mention on the main page, e.g.:
Job postings are generally prohibited, but see the list page for
specific policy and exceptions.