I can see the potential conflict in interest in having someone who does
recruiting work handling the job postings. Obviously it is a concern to
some of our members.
Very few job postings I received were rejected. I often send them back to
the submitter for additional info. I reformatted most of
> "AL" == Andrew Langmead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AL> There are a couple of other ways that an evil headhunter who was in
AL> charge of the boston.pm job postings could use the position to their
AL> own private advantage. (I'm not talking about uri here, but a
AL> headhunter
> "TM" == Tom Metro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TM> OK, seems we have three votes for self-moderation...in other matters...
TM> Ben Tilly wrote:
>> ...regularly make a post listing any recent jobs.perl.org offerings
>> in the Boston area. The more I think about it, the better that opt
> "CD" == Chris Devers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CD> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> if someone else really wants to do it, fine with me but no one has
>> piped up about it.
CD> Oh fer cryin' out loud, how hard can it be?
CD> The conflict of interest here is obvious.
On Jun 30, 2008, at 2:39 PM, Ben Tilly wrote:
> There are other ways to address that. As a random one, you could
> publicly archive the list of requested job postings and the response
> on each one. That way companies can look through it and see that
> there is no bias.
The failure mode that I
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Uri Guttman wrote:
> if someone else really wants to do it, fine with me but no one has
> piped up about it.
Oh fer cryin' out loud, how hard can it be?
The conflict of interest here is obvious. Sorry, Uri, but there's no
getting around it. Fox guarding the henhouse and al
OK, seems we have three votes for self-moderation...in other matters...
Ben Tilly wrote:
> ...regularly make a post listing any recent jobs.perl.org offerings
> in the Boston area. The more I think about it, the better that option
> looks. Particularly if you can write an automated script to sear
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 19:20 -0400, Bob Rogers wrote:
> From: "Ricker, William" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Or we could consider a change of policy to just allow posting (with same
>caveat of locality and relevance), thus avoiding the issue entirely.
>
>Bill
>
> That makes much more sense.
From: "Ricker, William" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:06:25 -0400
> i may be evil but not THAT evil! :)
Uri, it's not about any actual evil. I would really really like to say
Yes to your kind offer. But Sean and I have to worry about the
*perception* of evil ev
> "RW" == Ricker, William <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RW> Sorry Uri, but unless you were to swear off taking fees from *all* local
RW> business (which I can neither ask, nor suggest nor expect), I think we
RW> need to have someone else, someone who *appears* *objectively* neutral,
RW>
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Unless they are really clued in to Boston.PM, they will not know that
> Uri is a headhunter. If they are clued in, they know enough about Uri
> to not worry. Where is the problem? I would suggest not worrying
> about
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 02:38:02PM -0400, Tom Metro wrote:
> As long as we provide a contact person that posters can consult with on
> questionable items, self-moderation will probably be fine.
I support this model. It seems fairly simple. Given that the purpose of
moderation is to avoid abuse, w
William Ricker wrote:
> Or we could consider a change of policy to just allow posting (with same
> caveat of locality and relevance), thus avoiding the issue entirely.
Practically speaking, the list isn't moderated, so any job poster who is
conscientious enough to read the list policy and follow
If we're going to have a human act as a filter for jobs posted on the perl
monger list, I think they should be free of any obvious conflicts of interest.
I don't think we can "ISO2000" the job posting into some kind of formal
"process" such that perception problems disappear.
Greg London
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Ricker, William
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> i may be evil but not THAT evil! :)
>
> Uri, it's not about any actual evil. I would really really like to say
> Yes to your kind offer. But Sean and I have to worry about the
> *perception* of evil even where it isn'
> i may be evil but not THAT evil! :)
Uri, it's not about any actual evil. I would really really like to say
Yes to your kind offer. But Sean and I have to worry about the
*perception* of evil even where it isn't.
Local companies, some of whom sponsor Boston.PM, expect postings to the
list via
16 matches
Mail list logo
