Re: [python-uk] Announcing the Yorkshire Inquisition

[Edward Hartley]

> On 7 Dec 2016, at 13:36, Thomas Kluyver  wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016, at 01:20 PM, Andy Robinson wrote:
>> To enforce good conduct in a suitably Pythonic manner, I  hereby
>> propose the foundation of the Yorkshire Inquisition, headed by Steve.
> 
> I don't think anybody expected that!
> 
>> Such an institution will have truly terrifying powers of enforcement.
>> Suggestions welcome on this thread
> 
> Give the inquisition the power to restrict someone's use of language
> features. For instance, in a relatively mild incident, the heretic may
> be banned from using for loops for a month, and have to emulate them
> using while instead.
And have to prove they are not a witch by showing they don't float when pitched 
into the Ouse?
> 
> Thomas
> ___
> 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

Re: [python-uk] 2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to £95k

[Mark Lawrence via python-uk]

On 08/12/2016 14:00, Andy Robinson wrote:

On 8 December 2016 at 09:29, James Broadhead  wrote:


Personally, I'd be in favour of #2 - it allows the community to promote
positions internally, but avoids recruiter-mails which seem to trigger so
much ire.


It seems to me that the real issue was a tiny number of list members
being rude to or about Sophie Hendley.

But if we are to consider changing our policy on this, then we need to
find out what the 720 subscribers think.   I would not want to cut
that many people off from a relevant and interesting future job offer
if less than 1% of them are grumbling about recruiters.   How many
people would need to express an opinion to warrant changing things?

- Andy



Please leave things alone.  I regard this entire thread as a storm in a 
thimble.


--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

___
python-uk mailing list
python-uk@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

Re: [python-uk] 2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to £95k

[Daniele Procida]

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016, Michael  wrote:

>IMO, Leave it as is, and ask people just for a bit of common politeness.
>The list description says "there will be job ads". it's said that for years
>(decades?) Anyone who doesn't like it doesn't actually have to join. (and
>if they can't tolerate a high peak of 5 ads in a month - not even this
>month, perhaps they need to re-evaluate their response)

I agree. 

If we change anything it should be to make the list more welcoming, not to show 
people (who I think have left in any case) that they can get what they want by 
being aggressive.

Daniele

___
python-uk mailing list
python-uk@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

Re: [python-uk] 2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to £95k

[David Wilson]

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 02:20:30PM +, S Walker wrote:

> Frankly if we didn't have people complaining about the job postings
> each time they were made

I suspect that is a rule everyone could get behind. :)


> they'd be responsible for a negligible amount of list traffic.

Ignoring discussions of job postings and meeting announcements, the only
two really useful things IMHO that hit python-uk, what other purpose
does the list continue to serve?

Back in the day, lists like this would be brimming with news of
advocacy, success stories and suchlike, but Python has long since become
mainstream.

If we legislate against job postings, it seems there isn't much
legitimate content that remains relevant to this list.


David
___
python-uk mailing list
python-uk@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

Re: [python-uk] 2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to £95k

[Michael]

Andy,


Speaking as one of the few who didn't say anything - because the ad wasn't
relevant to me at the time - I personally see little reason to change the
policy of allowing job ads on here. A handful of people complain once or
twice a year, and the upshot is more posts and traffic as a result of the
complaint that all the job postings in the past 9/10 months.

There's so few ads posted, listing the dates:

Dec 6th - Sophie - uproar
Nov 14th - Adam - no comment by others
Nov 7th - Sophie - no comment by others
Nov 1st - Daniel - no comment by others
Oct 25th - Alastair - handful comments (criticising company's choice of
tech)
Oct 24th - Oisin - no comment by others
Sep 29th - A.Grandi - no comment by others
Sep 16th - Fabio - no comment by others
Sep 12th - Alastair - no comment by others
Sep 7th - Niamh - no comment by others
Sept 6th - Steve - no comment by others
Aug 31 - Ben - no comment by others
Aug 31 - Sophie - no comment by others
Aug 26 - Isambard - no comment by others
Jul 13 - Sophie - no comment by others
Jul 12 - David - no comment by others
Jul 7 - Sam - no comment by others
Jul 7 - Sophie - no comment by others
Jul 6 - Sophie - no comment by others
Apr 13 - Alan - no substantial comment by others

I got bored at that point :-)

There was discussion on Sep 2nd about this, with the consensus being
"revisit if it gets too spammy".

The posts on the list tend to be even announcements and job postings.

Perhaps worth noting that those who have posted multiple jobs appear to
have also participated in other discussions too. *Personally* I think it's
over inflated. The data says we're not inundated with job postings, and the
fact that the same people are posting them suggests to me that people are
getting jobs as a result of this. (I could be wrong on that - given it's
supposition)

As for code of conduct, I work with cubs every week who are 8-10.5 years
old and they would all understand that no matter how lighthearted, everyone
piling onto simple a mistake can be upsetting. And that's before the
dreadful comments that some people have made.

IMO, Leave it as is, and ask people just for a bit of common politeness.
The list description says "there will be job ads". it's said that for years
(decades?) Anyone who doesn't like it doesn't actually have to join. (and
if they can't tolerate a high peak of 5 ads in a month - not even this
month, perhaps they need to re-evaluate their response)

Anyway, that's my tuppenceworth.


Michael.

On 8 December 2016 at 14:00, Andy Robinson  wrote:

> On 8 December 2016 at 09:29, James Broadhead 
> wrote:
>
> > Personally, I'd be in favour of #2 - it allows the community to promote
> > positions internally, but avoids recruiter-mails which seem to trigger so
> > much ire.
>
> It seems to me that the real issue was a tiny number of list members
> being rude to or about Sophie Hendley.
>
> But if we are to consider changing our policy on this, then we need to
> find out what the 720 subscribers think.   I would not want to cut
> that many people off from a relevant and interesting future job offer
> if less than 1% of them are grumbling about recruiters.   How many
> people would need to express an opinion to warrant changing things?
>
> - Andy
> ___
> 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

Re: [python-uk] 2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to £95k

[S Walker]

I've read comments on here supporting there being job postings as they
are of use to the community (I think all of us like being able to afford
to eat, right?), and I'd tend to agree with that.

Maybe a better idea would be to put guidelines for job posting (e.g. not
more than x frequency, containing at least y details).

Frankly if we didn't have people complaining about the job postings each
time they were made they'd be responsible for a negligible amount of
list traffic.

Thanks,
S

On 08/12/16 14:06, Stestagg wrote:
> I agree with John
> 
> While recruitment emails don't bother me directly, the debates around
> allowing them are getting quite repetitive.
> 
> My vote goes on a no job adverts policy. It's not clear to me that
> enforcement will be difficult. Do we really think that the pyuk
> recruiters will not honour this?
> 
> As a side note, it would be great if http://pythonjobs.github.io/ gained
> some more maintainers and became the go-to place for job postings.
> 
> Steve
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 at 13:30, James Broadhead  > wrote:
> 
> On 7 December 2016 at 21:14, John Lee  > wrote:
> 
> Having been on this list since 2004 I *think* I'm right in
> saying that there have never been sharp words on any subject
> EXCEPT recruiters.
> 
> So though I've defended recruiters here before, and posted job
> ads myself, I think we should consider the possibility that all
> that's needed is to not allow job ads (or not allow recruiters
> if you like -- but I think simplicity is a virtue here).  Then
> rogue job ads can be responded to on that strictly technical
> basis, and there will be fewer ads to cause strife in the first
> place.
> 
> 
> Seconded. This issue seems to be the largest source of disharmony by
> a wide margin, and I'd be in favour of writing up a specific rule,
> as there seem to be many different interpretations of the status quo.  
> 
> General options: 
> 1./ No recruitment messages of any kind 
> 2./ Only developers may post recruitment messages (they must have
> some association with the position)
> 3./ Any recruitment messages are allowed
> 
> Personally, I'd be in favour of #2 - it allows the community to
> promote positions internally, but avoids recruiter-mails which seem
> to trigger so much ire.
> 
> As Steve pointed out, enforcement would be the next problem -- I've
> seen this over and over on forums. Perhaps a large-ish number of
> list mods (10 or so), and discourage enforcement-en-mass? 
> 
> 
> Finally, we need to advertise the CoC & any new rules clearly to new
> subscribers and/or first-time posters. 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [python-uk] 2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to £95k

[Ian Makgill]

+1 for that. Then if you don't want job ads you can filter out content with
that url.

On 8 December 2016 at 15:16, Pete Graham  wrote:

> How about every job posting to this mailing list has to contain an
> accompanying link to the full job ad on http://pythonjobs.github.io/? If
> someone forgets we can politely remind them.
>
> Pete
>
> On 8 December 2016 at 14:06, Stestagg  wrote:
>
>> I agree with John
>>
>> While recruitment emails don't bother me directly, the debates around
>> allowing them are getting quite repetitive.
>>
>> My vote goes on a no job adverts policy. It's not clear to me that
>> enforcement will be difficult. Do we really think that the pyuk recruiters
>> will not honour this?
>>
>> As a side note, it would be great if http://pythonjobs.github.io/ gained
>> some more maintainers and became the go-to place for job postings.
>>
>> Steve
>> On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 at 13:30, James Broadhead 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 December 2016 at 21:14, John Lee  wrote:
>>>
>>> Having been on this list since 2004 I *think* I'm right in saying that
>>> there have never been sharp words on any subject EXCEPT recruiters.
>>>
>>> So though I've defended recruiters here before, and posted job ads
>>> myself, I think we should consider the possibility that all that's needed
>>> is to not allow job ads (or not allow recruiters if you like -- but I think
>>> simplicity is a virtue here).  Then rogue job ads can be responded to on
>>> that strictly technical basis, and there will be fewer ads to cause strife
>>> in the first place.
>>>
>>>
>>> Seconded. This issue seems to be the largest source of disharmony by a
>>> wide margin, and I'd be in favour of writing up a specific rule, as there
>>> seem to be many different interpretations of the status quo.
>>>
>>> General options:
>>> 1./ No recruitment messages of any kind
>>> 2./ Only developers may post recruitment messages (they must have some
>>> association with the position)
>>> 3./ Any recruitment messages are allowed
>>>
>>> Personally, I'd be in favour of #2 - it allows the community to promote
>>> positions internally, but avoids recruiter-mails which seem to trigger so
>>> much ire.
>>>
>>> As Steve pointed out, enforcement would be the next problem -- I've seen
>>> this over and over on forums. Perhaps a large-ish number of list mods (10
>>> or so), and discourage enforcement-en-mass?
>>>
>>>
>>> Finally, we need to advertise the CoC & any new rules clearly to new
>>> subscribers and/or first-time posters.
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>
___
python-uk mailing list
python-uk@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

Re: [python-uk] 2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to £95k

[Pete Graham]

How about every job posting to this mailing list has to contain an
accompanying link to the full job ad on http://pythonjobs.github.io/? If
someone forgets we can politely remind them.

Pete

On 8 December 2016 at 14:06, Stestagg  wrote:

> I agree with John
>
> While recruitment emails don't bother me directly, the debates around
> allowing them are getting quite repetitive.
>
> My vote goes on a no job adverts policy. It's not clear to me that
> enforcement will be difficult. Do we really think that the pyuk recruiters
> will not honour this?
>
> As a side note, it would be great if http://pythonjobs.github.io/ gained
> some more maintainers and became the go-to place for job postings.
>
> Steve
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 at 13:30, James Broadhead 
> wrote:
>
>> On 7 December 2016 at 21:14, John Lee  wrote:
>>
>> Having been on this list since 2004 I *think* I'm right in saying that
>> there have never been sharp words on any subject EXCEPT recruiters.
>>
>> So though I've defended recruiters here before, and posted job ads
>> myself, I think we should consider the possibility that all that's needed
>> is to not allow job ads (or not allow recruiters if you like -- but I think
>> simplicity is a virtue here).  Then rogue job ads can be responded to on
>> that strictly technical basis, and there will be fewer ads to cause strife
>> in the first place.
>>
>>
>> Seconded. This issue seems to be the largest source of disharmony by a
>> wide margin, and I'd be in favour of writing up a specific rule, as there
>> seem to be many different interpretations of the status quo.
>>
>> General options:
>> 1./ No recruitment messages of any kind
>> 2./ Only developers may post recruitment messages (they must have some
>> association with the position)
>> 3./ Any recruitment messages are allowed
>>
>> Personally, I'd be in favour of #2 - it allows the community to promote
>> positions internally, but avoids recruiter-mails which seem to trigger so
>> much ire.
>>
>> As Steve pointed out, enforcement would be the next problem -- I've seen
>> this over and over on forums. Perhaps a large-ish number of list mods (10
>> or so), and discourage enforcement-en-mass?
>>
>>
>> Finally, we need to advertise the CoC & any new rules clearly to new
>> subscribers and/or first-time posters.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [python-uk] 2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to £95k

[Stestagg]

I agree with John

While recruitment emails don't bother me directly, the debates around
allowing them are getting quite repetitive.

My vote goes on a no job adverts policy. It's not clear to me that
enforcement will be difficult. Do we really think that the pyuk recruiters
will not honour this?

As a side note, it would be great if http://pythonjobs.github.io/ gained
some more maintainers and became the go-to place for job postings.

Steve
On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 at 13:30, James Broadhead 
wrote:

> On 7 December 2016 at 21:14, John Lee  wrote:
>
> Having been on this list since 2004 I *think* I'm right in saying that
> there have never been sharp words on any subject EXCEPT recruiters.
>
> So though I've defended recruiters here before, and posted job ads myself,
> I think we should consider the possibility that all that's needed is to not
> allow job ads (or not allow recruiters if you like -- but I think
> simplicity is a virtue here).  Then rogue job ads can be responded to on
> that strictly technical basis, and there will be fewer ads to cause strife
> in the first place.
>
>
> Seconded. This issue seems to be the largest source of disharmony by a
> wide margin, and I'd be in favour of writing up a specific rule, as there
> seem to be many different interpretations of the status quo.
>
> General options:
> 1./ No recruitment messages of any kind
> 2./ Only developers may post recruitment messages (they must have some
> association with the position)
> 3./ Any recruitment messages are allowed
>
> Personally, I'd be in favour of #2 - it allows the community to promote
> positions internally, but avoids recruiter-mails which seem to trigger so
> much ire.
>
> As Steve pointed out, enforcement would be the next problem -- I've seen
> this over and over on forums. Perhaps a large-ish number of list mods (10
> or so), and discourage enforcement-en-mass?
>
>
> Finally, we need to advertise the CoC & any new rules clearly to new
> subscribers and/or first-time posters.
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [python-uk] 2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to £95k

[Andy Robinson]

On 8 December 2016 at 09:29, James Broadhead  wrote:

> Personally, I'd be in favour of #2 - it allows the community to promote
> positions internally, but avoids recruiter-mails which seem to trigger so
> much ire.

It seems to me that the real issue was a tiny number of list members
being rude to or about Sophie Hendley.

But if we are to consider changing our policy on this, then we need to
find out what the 720 subscribers think.   I would not want to cut
that many people off from a relevant and interesting future job offer
if less than 1% of them are grumbling about recruiters.   How many
people would need to express an opinion to warrant changing things?

- Andy
___
python-uk mailing list
python-uk@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

Re: [python-uk] 2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to £95k

[James Broadhead]

On 7 December 2016 at 21:14, John Lee  wrote:

> Having been on this list since 2004 I *think* I'm right in saying that
> there have never been sharp words on any subject EXCEPT recruiters.
>
> So though I've defended recruiters here before, and posted job ads myself,
> I think we should consider the possibility that all that's needed is to not
> allow job ads (or not allow recruiters if you like -- but I think
> simplicity is a virtue here).  Then rogue job ads can be responded to on
> that strictly technical basis, and there will be fewer ads to cause strife
> in the first place.


Seconded. This issue seems to be the largest source of disharmony by a wide
margin, and I'd be in favour of writing up a specific rule, as there seem
to be many different interpretations of the status quo.

General options:
1./ No recruitment messages of any kind
2./ Only developers may post recruitment messages (they must have some
association with the position)
3./ Any recruitment messages are allowed

Personally, I'd be in favour of #2 - it allows the community to promote
positions internally, but avoids recruiter-mails which seem to trigger so
much ire.

As Steve pointed out, enforcement would be the next problem -- I've seen
this over and over on forums. Perhaps a large-ish number of list mods (10
or so), and discourage enforcement-en-mass?


Finally, we need to advertise the CoC & any new rules clearly to new
subscribers and/or first-time posters.
___
python-uk mailing list
python-uk@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

Re: [python-uk] 2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to £95k

[Marcelo Elias Del Valle]

It gives the impression to me that being offensive pays off. But I am new
here, I don't have a strong opinion.


On 8 Dec 2016 09:53, "Gilberto Gonçalves"  wrote:

> So though I've defended recruiters here before, and posted job ads myself,
>> I think we should consider the possibility that all that's needed is to not
>> allow job ads (or not allow recruiters if you like -- but I think
>> simplicity is a virtue here).  Then rogue job ads can be responded to on
>> that strictly technical basis, and there will be fewer ads to cause strife
>> in the first place.
>
>
> I agree, even thought this wouldn't solve the root cause, at least it
> would mitigate the issue a bit.
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 9:14 PM, John Lee  wrote:
>
>> Having been on this list since 2004 I *think* I'm right in saying that
>> there have never been sharp words on any subject EXCEPT recruiters.
>>
>> So though I've defended recruiters here before, and posted job ads
>> myself, I think we should consider the possibility that all that's needed
>> is to not allow job ads (or not allow recruiters if you like -- but I think
>> simplicity is a virtue here).  Then rogue job ads can be responded to on
>> that strictly technical basis, and there will be fewer ads to cause strife
>> in the first place.
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Marcelo Elias Del Valle wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>>
>>> This is my first message to this list and I am sad the first message is
>>> not
>>> about python... But as you're talking about code of conduct, I would like
>>> to suggest something that has worked very well for me in other groups I
>>> participate.
>>> Personally, I don't like CoC much, because it's easy to turn it
>>> bureaucracy
>>> and make people not comfortable in giving their opinions, which is not
>>> usually what we desire. Absence of rules, though, is always bad.
>>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [python-uk] 2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to £95k

[Gilberto Gonçalves]

>
> So though I've defended recruiters here before, and posted job ads myself,
> I think we should consider the possibility that all that's needed is to not
> allow job ads (or not allow recruiters if you like -- but I think
> simplicity is a virtue here).  Then rogue job ads can be responded to on
> that strictly technical basis, and there will be fewer ads to cause strife
> in the first place.


I agree, even thought this wouldn't solve the root cause, at least it would
mitigate the issue a bit.

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 9:14 PM, John Lee  wrote:

> Having been on this list since 2004 I *think* I'm right in saying that
> there have never been sharp words on any subject EXCEPT recruiters.
>
> So though I've defended recruiters here before, and posted job ads myself,
> I think we should consider the possibility that all that's needed is to not
> allow job ads (or not allow recruiters if you like -- but I think
> simplicity is a virtue here).  Then rogue job ads can be responded to on
> that strictly technical basis, and there will be fewer ads to cause strife
> in the first place.
>
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Marcelo Elias Del Valle wrote:
>
> Hello,
>>
>> This is my first message to this list and I am sad the first message is
>> not
>> about python... But as you're talking about code of conduct, I would like
>> to suggest something that has worked very well for me in other groups I
>> participate.
>> Personally, I don't like CoC much, because it's easy to turn it
>> bureaucracy
>> and make people not comfortable in giving their opinions, which is not
>> usually what we desire. Absence of rules, though, is always bad.
>>
> ___
> 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