FreeBSD jobs

[Alfred Perlstein]

[[ moved thread to -chat ]]

* Julian Stacey <jhs at berklix.org> [090515 09:55] wrote:
> > >> Internships are an accepted way for a high school or university
> > >
> > > In America. America imported unpaid apprenticeships & indentured
> > > servitude (time limited slavery) from Europe/Britain centuries ago.
> > 
> > Take this somewhere else, it's getting boring. Grown-ups should know
> > what they're doing without your protection and the rest might learn
> > a bit on their own.
> 
> You'r right on adults & free choice, I'll drop that rather than drift.
> What I was trying to illustrate is what jobs@ censors pass & block.
>    - jobs@ is censored, so jobs@ censors performance cant be discussed on jobs at .
>    - Those that pushed to censor jobs@ some years ago (& succesors?)
>      are not worth having, jobs at FreeBSD would be better without them.
>    - Censors of jobs@ do not have the courage to announce on footer or 
>      header of jobs@ that they censor jobs at freebsd.
>    - Most don't know jobs at freebsd Is censored.
>      Most think only announce@ is moderated , & maybe arch at .  
>    - Moving to chat@ is for things that drift off from FreeSBD, but
>      FreeBSD censorship Is relevant to FreeBSD, 
>    - Where better than hackers@ to look for support to liberate
>      jobs at freebsd from censors ?

Thanks Julian,

Let's talk about FreeBSD-jobs before moderation and after.

1)
First since its a low traffic list, there was a lot more spam than
content which discouraged people from signing up.  Now there is
no spam.

2)
People, like you, would flame job posters in way over the top
manners which drove companies away from both the list and FreeBSD
professionals in general.

3)
Recruiters would post inappropriate jobs or jobs with too little
information (mostly lack of location), this would annoy people and
waste people's time.  So now instead of having multiple hot heads
like yourself blasting them, one of us kindly bounces the email
back to them with a cordial note explaining what they need to do
to post, or if they just shouldn't be posting.  If they continue
"not to get it", we typically just ignore them instead of inflaming
the situation.

I recall how it would be comical if it wasn't so sad at how badly
the reaction would be to a single post with the sin of ommitting
location or ANYTHING that some person figured they REQUIRED of the
posts on the lists.   Sometimes huge flamewars would ensue just
because someone _missed_ seeing the actual location.  It was just
sad.

At the time, if I was a recruiter, or someone just browsing our
lists, it would seriously discount the professionalism of ANY reply
I received based on the other flamers on the list.

The fact of the matter was that it really didn't matter how hard
the recruiter tried, there would almost certainly be _something_
in the email that someone would latch onto as a reason to childishly
flame the author.

So basically this is all addressed now.  We still get occasional
flames, but we dev-null them.  Although this is the first time
we've had such an... enthusiastic... individual looking to make a
spectacle of things by cross posting.

Good luck Julian,
-- 
- Alfred Perlstein