I think this is exchange is clear proof that the list requires a Code of Conduct. Does the list-owner agree, and if so, can we discuss a process for enacting one to move this conversation in a more productive direction?
Kaitlyn > On 7 Dec 2016, at 10:55, Cory Benfield (Lukasa) <lukas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 7 Dec 2016, at 10:31, Richard Smith <rich...@indigo3.com> wrote: >> >> What was rude about it? We should expect recruitment agents to do a little >> work to gain our trust. There are far too many bad agents in the world who >> think it's acceptable to cold-call, spam, bully, edit CVs, fake candidates >> and many underhanded activities. > > What was rude about it? I will quote you back to yourself: > >> It was clear from the OPs post that no thought was put into making the post >> and that her intention was simply to float it out there to get some fish >> biting. >> >> Had Sophie made an effort, perhaps I might have been more accommodating. As >> it stands, I've no interest in dealing with lazy recruitment agents. > > In these two paragraphs you assert that Sophie is lazy, cynical, and > opportunistic. Those assertions are rude. They make no effort to assume the > best of other people. They judge a human being’s actions through the lens of > their job title alone. That kind of behaviour is uncharitable, and it is > rude, and it is frankly below us as a community. While I’m here, I should > note that your claim that you weren’t being rude is followed by a discussion > about “bad agents […] who think it’s acceptable to cold-call, spam, bully, > edit CVs, fake candidates, and many underhanded activities”, when even a most > charitable reading of this situation gives you enough evidence to accuse OP > of *at most* spamming. > > Your disinterest in dealing with lazy recruitment agents is best dealt with > by marking the mail as read, adding the sender to a block list, and moving > on. But the fact that you feel personally aggrieved by recruiter behaviour > does not justify this rant. If you would like to discuss whether recruiter > mail should be allowed on this mailing list, feel free. However, you should > try to avoid making it personal. Criticise the work, not the messenger. And > if I’m wrong about your motives and you genuinely do want to criticise OP, > you should be up-front about that rather than pretending you aren’t doing it, > and then you should expect that other people on the mailing list will call > you out when you do it. > > This nonsense is why communities feel the need to put codes of conduct in > place. The original incident is long over, with all relevant people having > apologised for the various miscommunications. No bad intent was had on either > side: it was a classic miscommunication. The incident itself required no CoC > to resolve. But rather than let this lie, you appear to have felt the need to > make the principled stand that no apology was needed because recruiters are > bad people who deserve to be mocked. If that’s your position, then you find > yourself at odds with the norms on this list, which allow job posts. You > should feel free to change that norm, but you should not assume that you have > carte blanche to unload on each recruiter that comes by. Do what the rest of > us do and just *ignore it*. > > Cory > _______________________________________________ > python-uk mailing list > python-uk@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk _______________________________________________ python-uk mailing list python-uk@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk
