On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:57:51AM +0000, Kaitlyn Tierney wrote: > 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?
+1 > 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 _______________________________________________ python-uk mailing list python-uk@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk
