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

[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

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

[John Lee]

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

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

[Marcelo Elias Del Valle]

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.

I other groups, we have this simple rule: you can offend any idea, you
can't offend any people.

   - Anything you say offending an idea, like "Django is a piece of crap",
   "Mac is a devil operating system", "What you're saying is stupid", etc., is
   allowed.
   - Anything you say offending someone, like "You must be stupid to say
   something like this", "Don't defend Ruby, people who like ruby are
   incompetent", "Either you have a degree or your opinion is not worth being
   heard" can lead to kick you out.

If you think a code of conduct is needed to stop people from sending jobs
offers, this is another story and a separate subject, as a message with a
job offer wouldn't justify any personal attack. But I don't think anything
more than the above is needed as a rule for a mailing list. Usually members
auto organize themselves in ML without any complicated list of conduct.

Best regards,
Marcelo.


On 7 December 2016 at 13:12, Thomas Kluyver  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Richard Smith wrote:
>
> 
> ...
> For getattr(universe, 'deity')'s sake, grow some balls and talk to people.
>
> ...
> > Words escape me to explain quite how moronic that statement is.
>
> Now you are unquestionably being rude to first Cory, then Daniele. The
> more messages like this I see, the more I agree that a code of conduct is
> necessary. If you don't think CoCs are necessary, please demonstrate that
> by remaining civil in the absence of one.
>
> Thomas
>
> ___
> python-uk mailing list
> python-uk@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk
>
>


-- 
Marcelo Elias Del Valle
http://mvalle.com - @mvallebr
___
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

[Pepper R .]

Once again, the volume of discussion on whether recruitment emails are 
appropriate for the list is larger than the volume of recruitment emails we get 
on this list




On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:19 AM +, "Daniele Procida" 
> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016, Richard Smith  wrote:

>However, lets not forget what the original post was, which is spam. I
>object to having that kind of content in my mailbox (have subsequently
>added the OP to my shitlist in GApps).

It wasn't spam. We have discussed several times whether recruitment messages 
are welcome here. To date, we've not come to any consensus that they are not.

>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.

This is rudeness bordering on abuse, and it's definitely not acceptable on this 
email list.

Daniele

___
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

[Thomas Kluyver]

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Richard Smith wrote:

> 

> ...

> For getattr(universe, 'deity')'s sake, grow some balls and talk
> to people.
...

> Words escape me to explain quite how moronic that statement is.



Now you are unquestionably being rude to first Cory, then Daniele. The
more messages like this I see, the more I agree that a code of conduct
is necessary. If you don't think CoCs are necessary, please demonstrate
that by remaining civil in the absence of one.


Thomas
___
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

[Steve Holden]

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Richard Barran 
wrote:

> I am reading your last 2 sentences and I hope I’m horribly
> misunderstanding your post; I’m reading that you are implying that I was
> picking on someone’s disability. Could you just confirm that I’ve got it
> completely wrong?
>

I'd have thought that was meant as a general injunction to us all rather
than guidance intended for you personally. But other interpretations are
possible. Personally I try to err on the side o fth emost charitable, in
the interests of keeping email volumes down ;-)

regards
 Steve

Steve Holden
___
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

[Steve Holden]

Great heavens, I'd have thought it was obvious that anyone telling a woman
to "get a pair of balls" clearly has trouble perceiving women and men
through the same set of filters. And now you involve the deity, albeit as a
free variable. Then you interpret civil (though critical) comments about
your behaviour (rather than about you) as personal bullying.

I am struggling to understand your world view.  S

Steve Holden

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Richard Smith  wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 at 12:33 Daniele Procida  wrote:
>
>> So, you are literally saying that the only way to get by here is by being
>> a man.
>>
>> I see Sophie's problem all too clearly.
>
>
> *blink*[0]
>
> Words escape me to explain quite how moronic that statement is. Let me
> rephrase for your benefit[1]:
>
> For getattr(universe, 'deity')'s sake, grow up and talk to people.
>
> Now who's getting personal and going off on the bullying. That's enough...
> I'm out of here.
>
>  ~ Rich
>
> [0] I know, I said I wouldn't contribute further, but this entire response
> requires something
> [1] I honestly can't believe you think *that* has any bearing on my
> opinion or thinking.
>
> ___
> 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

[Richard Smith]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 at 12:33 Daniele Procida  wrote:

> So, you are literally saying that the only way to get by here is by being
> a man.
>
> I see Sophie's problem all too clearly.


*blink*[0]

Words escape me to explain quite how moronic that statement is. Let me
rephrase for your benefit[1]:

For getattr(universe, 'deity')'s sake, grow up and talk to people.

Now who's getting personal and going off on the bullying. That's enough...
I'm out of here.

 ~ Rich

[0] I know, I said I wouldn't contribute further, but this entire response
requires something
[1] I honestly can't believe you think *that* has any bearing on my opinion
or thinking.
___
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 Wed, Dec 7, 2016, Richard Smith  wrote:

>
>
>For future reference, I did criticise the work... and was then accused of
>being rude about my personal summary dismissal of the quality of the
>recruiter based on the evidence available.
>
>Furthermore a CoC is not the way forward. CoC's validate the passive
>agaressive stance on interpersonal communications. For getattr(universe,
>'deity')'s sake, grow some balls and talk to people.

So, you are literally saying that the only way to get by here is by being a man.

I see Sophie's problem all too clearly.

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

[Steve Holden]

Since this list is run via a python.org server I'd imagine there's at least
implicit consent by members to the Python Community Code of Conduct at
https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/. The three headings are "Open,"
"Considerate" and "Respectful". Clearly there is no agreement on those
terms and whether they can be applied to specific commnications. Without
such agreement no commonly acceptable standard of behaviour can be
established.

If anyone feels the need to start discussions on any other CoC than the one
linked above I will, having spent almost two years of my life establishing
the PSF Diversity Statement and Code of Conduct, leave this list rather
than filter out the correspondence. Take it from one who knows, while the
aim is laudable you have many better things to do with your time. Of course
it's entirely possible this will cause greater numbers to agitate FOR a new
CoC ...

regards
 Steve

Steve Holden

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Nick Murdoch  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:57:51AM +, 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) 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 7 Dec 2016, at 10:31, Richard Smith  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
>

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

[Richard Smith]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 at 10:56 Cory Benfield (Lukasa) 
wrote:


For future reference, I did criticise the work... and was then accused of
being rude about my personal summary dismissal of the quality of the
recruiter based on the evidence available.

Furthermore a CoC is not the way forward. CoC's validate the passive
agaressive stance on interpersonal communications. For getattr(universe,
'deity')'s sake, grow some balls and talk to people. The WORST thing in the
world is the phrase "I'm offended". In the words of Stephen Fry, 'So what!'.

I shan't be contributing any further.

 ~ Rich
___
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

[Alistair Broomhead]

I would prefer not to hold other people to a higher standard than I hold
myself. I know I'm certainly guilty of sending an email in a rush before,
and later seeing that it wasn't perfect.

The matter of the email's spelling being raked up again and again, when
Sophie has apologised for it, and pointed out that this is something she
struggles with on account of her disability, quite frankly stinks of
ableism, which I have no time for.

This community has a reputation for being inclusive and friendly. Picking
on someone's disability is a great way to destroy that reputation. Please
don't.

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 at 11:44 Richard Barran 
wrote:

>
> > On 7 Dec 2016, at 11:49, Daniele Procida  wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016, Richard Smith  wrote:
> >
> >> What was rude about it?
> >
> > Referring to a person as a "lazy recruitment agent" is rude.
> >
> >> Sophie is
> >> going to have to prove that she can be a trusted agent.
> >
> > Sophie doesn't have to prove anything. All she has to do is use the list
> in accordance with its agreed purposes, politely.
> >
>
> I have to disagree; using a list in accordance with its agreed purpose, or
> with a code of conduct, or whatever, is not enough.
> The people who subscribe to this list are busy; we all have lives, jobs,
> families, unreasonable bosses, tiring commutes, sick and elderly parents,
> etc…
> Someone who requests our attention and time should respect that time, that
> attention that we are giving them.
>
> The recruiter who started this thread has posted several times before to
> this list; looking at her previous posts, they are well formatted, explain
> succinctly the jobs on offer, and provide enough information for me to
> decide if I want to contact her for more information (and just in case my
> boss is reading this: no, I’m not *actually* reading the job ads in
> detail!).
>
> This latest post, however, was frankly lazy:
> - typo in the title.
> - a list of technologies that’s badly copy-and-pasted (e.g “Postgre”) as
> well as showing poor understanding of the subject area (“tech stack”
> includes “APIs”. Err, come again?).
>
> The OP has proven that "that she can be a trusted agent” (to quote from
> Richard Smith’s email) in the past.
> However, trust and respect is not something that is earned once and for
> all - if I start spouting rubbish, I can expect to be called out on it, not
> matter how much respect (or “browny points”) I might have earned in the
> past. And I think that this should apply to anyone who posts to a mailing
> list.
>
> Richard
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Nicholas H.Tollervey]

This topic comes around every couple of years or so... If memory serves
me correctly, most people have thus far agreed posting jobs is fine
(assuming they're comprehensively described and not obvious recruitment
spam).

On 07/12/16 11:16, Kaitlyn Tierney wrote:
> I’m happy not to have recruitment messages on the discussion list. We
> all get inundated with enough of them as it is, and anyone actively
> looking for opportunities would probably be smart enough to
> visit https://pythonjobs.github.io/ or attend a Dojo and chat with
> others about hiring in person. If there are strong counter-arguments
> though, or some long-standing historical discussion I’m unaware of, by
> all means...
> 
> Kaitlyn
> 
>> On 7 Dec 2016, at 11:11, Thomas Kluyver > > wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016, at 10:57 AM, 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?
>>
>> Following the vein of trying to move towards productive discussion:
>> there appears to be some disagreement on how appropriate job posts are
>> on this list. Daniele mentioned that there's a general consensus that
>> recruitment messages are allowed, but clearly not everyone is happy
>> about that.
>>
>> - Should there be a separate discussion list which does not allow
>> recruitment messages? This list is generally quite low traffic (except
>> the last couple of days ;-), so it doesn't seem worth splitting it
>> further.
>>
>> - Do we consider some recruitment messages more spammish than others? Is
>> there a certain level of detail we should expect? Are there guidelines
>> we can give recruiters wanting to contact the list?
>>
>> 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
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
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

[Thomas Kluyver]

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016, at 10:57 AM, 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?

Following the vein of trying to move towards productive discussion:
there appears to be some disagreement on how appropriate job posts are
on this list. Daniele mentioned that there's a general consensus that
recruitment messages are allowed, but clearly not everyone is happy
about that.

- Should there be a separate discussion list which does not allow
recruitment messages? This list is generally quite low traffic (except
the last couple of days ;-), so it doesn't seem worth splitting it
further.

- Do we consider some recruitment messages more spammish than others? Is
there a certain level of detail we should expect? Are there guidelines
we can give recruiters wanting to contact the list?

Thomas
___
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 Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:31:56AM +, Richard Smith wrote:

> Ok, lets take the position it wasn't spam. If you received the OPs
> email, directly, would you require a little more information in the
> post other than a technology stack and a carrot on a stick?

The way this generally works is to forward a generic CV, wait an hour,
receive a phone call, then ask every question on your mind. As for why
it works that way, well, at least recruiters generally have much more to
lose by sharing their client's name than you do a generic CV.

It sucks but it's the way it is, and anyway it's not that much of a
hurdle to cross, not least since often things will be shared by
telephone that nobody in their right mind would commit to page.

The only recruiters who don't follow this pattern are generally those
working directly for a company, or perhaps less commonly, those with an
exclusive agreement or structure to provide services to their client,
and if you only accept solicitation from those then you'd be ignoring
90% of the work out there.

(I hate to find myself defending that industry, but in this case it
seems fair)


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

[Kaitlyn Tierney]

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)  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 7 Dec 2016, at 10:31, Richard Smith  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

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

[Cory Benfield (Lukasa)]

> On 7 Dec 2016, at 10:31, Richard Smith  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

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

[Daniele Procida]

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016, Richard Smith  wrote:

>On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 at 04:19 Daniele Procida  wrote:
>
>> It wasn't spam. We have discussed several times whether recruitment
>> messages are welcome here. To date, we've not come to any consensus that
>> they are not.
>>
>
>Ok, lets take the position it wasn't spam. 

Actually, *your* reply did go into my spam folder, and it was a while before I 
even found it.

>If you received the OPs email,
>directly, would you require a little more information in the post other
>than a technology stack and a carrot on a stick?
>
>Is this now the minimum people accept for employment opportunities and
>recruitment messages?
>
>I'm sorry but:
>
>a) I don't want to have to email a recruitment agent and beg for more info
>b) email recruitment agent only to be put on yet another mailing list to
>get more spam

Your wants and mine are not the issue here.

>> This is rudeness bordering on abuse, and it's definitely not acceptable on
>> this email list.
>
>
>What was rude about it? 

Referring to a person as a "lazy recruitment agent" is rude.

>Sophie is
>going to have to prove that she can be a trusted agent.

Sophie doesn't have to prove anything. All she has to do is use the list in 
accordance with its agreed purposes, politely.

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

[Steve Holden]

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Daniele Procida  wrote:

> >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.
>
> This is rudeness bordering on abuse, and it's definitely not acceptable on
> this email list.
>

It's certainly the kind of value judgement that is unhelpful, so thanks for
calling it out, Daniele. I'd like to feel we can treat everyone with the
same courtesy we'd like for ourselves.

Steve Holden
___
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

[Alistair Broomhead]

Let's get a few things out in the open:

1. This shouldn't need saying, but the python-uk making list is here to
serve the Python community in the United Kingdom. As the key usage of
Python by a large chunk of that community is gainful employment those of us
I've spoken to in person all seem to agree that job listings are
appropriate.

2. There is no code of conduct on this mailing list, but if we're not
sensible and sensitive there are only two ways this can go:

a) there is no more mailing list, nobody wants to be on here

b) we end up with a code of conduct in order to avoid a)

If we go the route of b) there may well be standards imposed on job
listings posted to this mailing list, but one or two of the replies on this
thread would probably result in those people having their posting
privileges removed. As someone who tries to be professional on here I have
no problem with that idea, but some might find it off-putting, si maybe we
should just be sensible.

3. Mail filters exist. If you really have an objection to seeing job
adverts there are only a handful of recruiters on this list. Just block
their messages and you won't have any problems.

4. Bullying is never acceptable. I can see that there is some good natured
humour in here, but at the point someone takes offence you should stop, or
at least make your position of not trying to cause offence clear. Telling
someone they should not have been offended, or that they shouldn't be in
here in the first place is not acceptable and creates further bad feeling.

5. Don't forget that most of the people who subscribe to this list do not
post. It might feel like a friendly chat between friends that is intruded
on by people you might not agree with, but there are hundreds if not
thousands of people watching.

Hopefully all of these points should be obvious to us all, and I'm not way
out of line on any of them, but I don't like the way this thread has gone,
it does not match with my thoughts on the temperament of our community, and
if there was a vote to close button I'd have pressed it long ago. If you
agree the best response to this message is none at all.

Al

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, 04:19 Daniele Procida,  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016, Richard Smith  wrote:
>
> >However, lets not forget what the original post was, which is spam. I
> >object to having that kind of content in my mailbox (have subsequently
> >added the OP to my shitlist in GApps).
>
> It wasn't spam. We have discussed several times whether recruitment
> messages are welcome here. To date, we've not come to any consensus that
> they are not.
>
> >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.
>
> This is rudeness bordering on abuse, and it's definitely not acceptable on
> this email list.
>
> Daniele
>
> ___
> 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

[Daniele Procida]

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016, Richard Smith  wrote:

>However, lets not forget what the original post was, which is spam. I
>object to having that kind of content in my mailbox (have subsequently
>added the OP to my shitlist in GApps).

It wasn't spam. We have discussed several times whether recruitment messages 
are welcome here. To date, we've not come to any consensus that they are not.

>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.

This is rudeness bordering on abuse, and it's definitely not acceptable on this 
email list.

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

[PyUK]

On 07/12/16 04:20, Richard Smith wrote:

On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 at 14:59 Steve Holden > wrote:
+1
A little innocent fun is OK, but when it runs the risk of being
hurtful it's probably gone far enough. It would be horrible if the
Python community got a name for being snide.



 +1

While I didn't post, I considered making something of a contribution,
which was, in hindsight not going to be a positive contribution.

However, lets not forget what the original post was, which is spam. I
object to having that kind of content in my mailbox (have subsequently
added the OP to my shitlist in GApps).

Dyslexia or not, the content of the opportunities that was advertised
were not of acceptable standard:

 - no salary definitions
 - no explanation of benefits
 - nothing but a technology stack as way of skills requirements which is
next to pointless
 - no info on precise location in London
 - naught but a slightly vague title
 - a salary carrot on a long stick (the "up to £95k").

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.



I join the sardonic amusement.

Despite Steve's (all too correct) sympathy expressed, I'm still on the 
'disappointed' side of the ledger because almost any 'advice' one reads 
for applicants writing/responding to agencies and potential employers 
includes stern (or lofty) advice about spell-checking, grammar-checking, 
sanity-checking, etc, etc. Do as I say, and not as I do?


Respect to the OP for responding in civil fashion!

Marks-off for not addressing the (above) list specifications (which 
again, given that you wouldn't want a non-Python person applying for 
such tasks and would immediately question if (s)he had read the advert 
properly?) Et tu Brute?


Strike three, as my American friends would say, was that said-reply will 
not be threaded with the rest of the email conversation. Any more than 
the OP is likely to connect an application entitled "Programmer skilled 
in interfacing C++ to COBOL" with these positions...



Sophie: you won't make these mistakes again, but I hope you will return 
with news of future opportunities. Meantime, how about reading-up on the 
technical aspects (per above), and then seeking to rebuild relationships 
by offering to host a local Python gathering, sponsor pizza at the next 
Python dojo, or similar?

(yes, we're that simple/easy to please!)


--
Regards,
=dn
___
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

[John Lee]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2016, Steve Holden wrote:


On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Nicholas H.Tollervey 
wrote:


On 06/12/16 12:31, Andy Robinson wrote:

Yes, but if the job involves "engineering" peoples' principles, it's a
bit worrying.


Depending on your level of cynicism that could apply to all sorts of
professions: from teachers via priests and "marketing types" to
politicians.



What's the principal principle to be observed in this principality?


Now everybody's friends again, I feel I can get away with adding:

There actually is a "principal principle" in the philosophy of probability 
(and therefore arguably in physics):


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_interpretations#cite_note-SEPIP-1

and here is a video that agrees it stems from a real problem in physics, 
but is the wrong solution to that problem (you can tell from the title 
what his proposed solution is :-):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc
___
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

[Steve Holden]

Yes, it's a pity the more rational feedback didn't come first, but knees do
tend to jerk at recruitment communications.  S

Steve Holden

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Tom Wright  wrote:

> Perhaps replying immediately doesn't count as pause, but I hope this
> constitutes thought.
>
> I would make three points:
>
> I. The tone of the response may in part be due to the recruitment topic
> more than anything else. This is unfortunately a rather fraught subject.
> Bulk recruitment ads are so common  it is unsurprising that people would
> view them as a piece of text rather than a correspondence with a real
> person.
>
> II. I suspect that many readers do not view this list as for communication
> that requires "professional" standards. And might view the imposition of
> professionalism in this context as problematic.
>
> This represents the key conflict at the heart of codes of conduct:
> in-group behaviour that can be damagingly exclusionary, versus the
> imposition of strict rules that impinge upon an informal setting.
>
> III. I don't know if the guidance on this list for jobs posts is
> particularly clear, and if I am not mistaken is mostly held in people's
> heads. An unfortunate side effect of no clearly defined rules is that the
> informal rules can be unforced rather unfriendlily.
>
> On 6 Dec 2016 1:46 p.m., "David Wilson"  wrote:
>
>> While I quite enjoyed this thread and, especially considering the
>> recruiter's followup, it appears to have somewhat been in bad taste.
>>
>> I can't speak for others, but I'm in my mid 30s and regularly confuse
>> license/licence, prescribe/proscribe and without doubt a bunch more,
>> either through finger memory or plain old thinko. It would not be
>> without embarrassment to have strangers publicly ridicule such errors,
>> especially in a professional context as occurred here.
>>
>> This is a minor incident, but it's from a class where the underlying
>> insensitivity has forced other communities to grow a Code of Conduct,
>> therefore perhaps it's worth taking a little pause to reflect on it.
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 01:57:00PM +, Nicholas H.Tollervey wrote:
>> > On 06/12/16 13:20, Roger Gammans wrote:
>> > > If your set of Prinicpia is Russell's not Newton's you may not
>> > > have simple values.
>> >
>> > Our principal aim is to express a complete and consistent set of
>> > misspelled principles.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> > ___
>> > 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

[Tom Wright]

Perhaps replying immediately doesn't count as pause, but I hope this
constitutes thought.

I would make three points:

I. The tone of the response may in part be due to the recruitment topic
more than anything else. This is unfortunately a rather fraught subject.
Bulk recruitment ads are so common  it is unsurprising that people would
view them as a piece of text rather than a correspondence with a real
person.

II. I suspect that many readers do not view this list as for communication
that requires "professional" standards. And might view the imposition of
professionalism in this context as problematic.

This represents the key conflict at the heart of codes of conduct: in-group
behaviour that can be damagingly exclusionary, versus the imposition of
strict rules that impinge upon an informal setting.

III. I don't know if the guidance on this list for jobs posts is
particularly clear, and if I am not mistaken is mostly held in people's
heads. An unfortunate side effect of no clearly defined rules is that the
informal rules can be unforced rather unfriendlily.

On 6 Dec 2016 1:46 p.m., "David Wilson"  wrote:

> While I quite enjoyed this thread and, especially considering the
> recruiter's followup, it appears to have somewhat been in bad taste.
>
> I can't speak for others, but I'm in my mid 30s and regularly confuse
> license/licence, prescribe/proscribe and without doubt a bunch more,
> either through finger memory or plain old thinko. It would not be
> without embarrassment to have strangers publicly ridicule such errors,
> especially in a professional context as occurred here.
>
> This is a minor incident, but it's from a class where the underlying
> insensitivity has forced other communities to grow a Code of Conduct,
> therefore perhaps it's worth taking a little pause to reflect on it.
>
>
> David
>
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 01:57:00PM +, Nicholas H.Tollervey wrote:
> > On 06/12/16 13:20, Roger Gammans wrote:
> > > If your set of Prinicpia is Russell's not Newton's you may not
> > > have simple values.
> >
> > Our principal aim is to express a complete and consistent set of
> > misspelled principles.
> >
>
>
>
> > ___
> > 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

[Richard Smith]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 at 14:59 Steve Holden  wrote:

> +1
>
> A little innocent fun is OK, but when it runs the risk of being hurtful
> it's probably gone far enough. It would be horrible if the Python community
> got a name for being snide.
>

 +1

While I didn't post, I considered making something of a contribution, which
was, in hindsight not going to be a positive contribution.

However, lets not forget what the original post was, which is spam. I
object to having that kind of content in my mailbox (have subsequently
added the OP to my shitlist in GApps).

Dyslexia or not, the content of the opportunities that was advertised were
not of acceptable standard:

 - no salary definitions
 - no explanation of benefits
 - nothing but a technology stack as way of skills requirements which is
next to pointless
 - no info on precise location in London
 - naught but a slightly vague title
 - a salary carrot on a long stick (the "up to £95k").

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.

 ~ Rich
___
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

[Steve Holden]

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 2:41 PM, David Wilson  wrote:

> This is a minor incident, but it's from a class where the underlying
> insensitivity has forced other communities to grow a Code of Conduct,
> therefore perhaps it's worth taking a little pause to reflect on it.
>

+1

A little innocent fun is OK, but when it runs the risk of being hurtful
it's probably gone far enough. It would be horrible if the Python community
got a name for being snide.

S

Steve Holden
___
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]

While I quite enjoyed this thread and, especially considering the
recruiter's followup, it appears to have somewhat been in bad taste.

I can't speak for others, but I'm in my mid 30s and regularly confuse
license/licence, prescribe/proscribe and without doubt a bunch more,
either through finger memory or plain old thinko. It would not be
without embarrassment to have strangers publicly ridicule such errors,
especially in a professional context as occurred here.

This is a minor incident, but it's from a class where the underlying
insensitivity has forced other communities to grow a Code of Conduct,
therefore perhaps it's worth taking a little pause to reflect on it.


David

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 01:57:00PM +, Nicholas H.Tollervey wrote:
> On 06/12/16 13:20, Roger Gammans wrote:
> > If your set of Prinicpia is Russell's not Newton's you may not
> > have simple values.
> 
> Our principal aim is to express a complete and consistent set of
> misspelled principles.
> 



> ___
> 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

[Nicholas H.Tollervey]

On 06/12/16 13:20, Roger Gammans wrote:
> If your set of Prinicpia is Russell's not Newton's you may not
> have simple values.

Our principal aim is to express a complete and consistent set of
misspelled principles.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
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

[Adam Johnson]

Participating in this grammatical buffoonery is against my... values.

On 6 December 2016 at 13:02, Andy Robinson  wrote:

> On 6 December 2016 at 12:58, Steve Holden  wrote:
> >
> >
> > What's the principal principle to be observed in this principality?
>
> Newton's "Principia", I would imagine
> ___
> python-uk mailing list
> python-uk@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk
>



-- 
Adam
___
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 6 December 2016 at 12:58, Steve Holden  wrote:
>
>
> What's the principal principle to be observed in this principality?

Newton's "Principia", I would imagine
___
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

[Steve Holden]

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Nicholas H.Tollervey 
wrote:

> On 06/12/16 12:31, Andy Robinson wrote:
> > Yes, but if the job involves "engineering" peoples' principles, it's a
> > bit worrying.
>
> Depending on your level of cynicism that could apply to all sorts of
> professions: from teachers via priests and "marketing types" to
> politicians.


What's the principal principle to be observed in this principality?

Steve Holden
___
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

[Nicholas H.Tollervey]

On 06/12/16 12:31, Andy Robinson wrote:
> Yes, but if the job involves "engineering" peoples' principles, it's a
> bit worrying.

Depending on your level of cynicism that could apply to all sorts of
professions: from teachers via priests and "marketing types" to politicians.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
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 6 December 2016 at 12:01, Nicholas H.Tollervey  wrote:
> How do you know they don't want a philosopher/Pythonista..? Having
> principles is important y'know... ;-)

Yes, but if the job involves "engineering" peoples' principles, it's a
bit worrying.

- 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

[Nicholas H.Tollervey]

On 06/12/16 11:53, Matthew Webber wrote:
> He probably did. It was a subtle dig at the recruiter mixing up
> "principle" and "principal".

How do you know they don't want a philosopher/Pythonista..? Having
principles is important y'know... ;-)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
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

[Matthew Webber]

>
> As a warning to others, I think you might not have wanted to reply to the
> list ;)
>

He probably did. It was a subtle dig at the recruiter mixing up "principle"
and "principal".

Share and enjoy.
Matthew
___
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

[Alistair Broomhead]

As a warning to others, I think you might not have wanted to reply to the
list ;)

On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 at 11:09 David Hughes  wrote:

> On 06/12/2016 10:20, Sophie Hendley wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I wanted to see if anyone on this list would be interested in chatting to
> me about either of the following.
>
> *Principle engineer/ Future CTO to highly anticipated insurance start-up *
>
> ...
>
>
>
> *Principle engineer /Second in command to the CTO at a highly successful
> SAAS start-up. *
>
> ...
>
>
>
> Get in touch if you are interested.
>
>
> Yes, in principal, I would be interested ;-)
>
> --
> Regards
>
> David Hughes
> Forestfield Software
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] 2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to £95k

[Sophie Hendley]

Hey all,

I wanted to see if anyone on this list would be interested in chatting to
me about either of the following.

*Principle engineer/ Future CTO to highly anticipated insurance start-up *

Techstack:

Python
Django
Javascript
React.js


*Principle engineer /Second in command to the CTO at a highly successful
SAAS start-up. *

Techstack:

Python
AWS
SQL
API's
Postgre


Get in touch if you are interested.

--

Sophie Hendley| Principal Consultant| Digital Vision

*M:* 07505145903

*E: *sophie.hend...@digvis.co.uk

*W:* www.digvis.co.uk

Sponsor me please- https://www.justgiving.com/sophiehendley/
___
python-uk mailing list
python-uk@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk