Other people find these posts to be annoying. At the very least, it encourages a lot of "don't post that here" "nono, you should post that here" discussions, which are highly flammable, and pretty worthless.
People posting jobs don't always realize that there IS a job board, which is why they post them here, and then they get a bunch of guff from the very people that they're trying to help and befriend. Here we are hijacking this poor guy's attempt to find a node.js developer, simply because he wants a developer who also knows php (a 100% fair request, imo).
As a moderator of this list, I've had to bat away quite a few moderated-first-messages that were obvious nonsensical recruiter buzzword spam of the worst sort, not looking for nodejs devs at all, including at least one for a "Jquery Java/JavaScript .NET" programmer. Some of those have gotten through, because apparently google groups' spam-prevention rules have some loopholes.
We've discussed it on this list in the past, and on the nodejs-dev list, but haven't really ever made the policy explicit. It's especially confusing because it used to be *encouraged* for a while. So, I wrote up this: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
That's gonna be linked at the bottom of the mailing list messages now. If you think that there are things that should be changed in that policy, then let's talk about it.
Yes, the job board costs money, but it's not in any way a significant source of revenue. If you really can't afford $100, you *definitely* can't afford to hire someone. If you're a buzzword spammer, then $100 is way more than the value you'd gain from annoying us, so it's a good gate that helps everyone who is honest. Candidates know that the posts are valid, and positions get taken more seriously.
If the price tag is actually a blocker for you for some reason, then please contact me, Tom Hughes-Croucher, or Ryan Dahl, and we'll try to figure something out.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:24, Jacobus brogly.decap
<jacobusbog...@gmail.com> wrote: > LOL, yeah , I just took a look at the link he was supposed to post the > job,...$100 a pop... I bet he doesnt own stock))) > Socialist thinking always does a good job in killing innovation)
>> Indeed. It's hardly "out of control" seeing a job posting like one a week >> at most.... hell even 1 per day is fine in my book... Why force people to go >> elsewhere. preface with [JOB] as this guy did and nobody is forcing you to >> open the email. delete it.
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Jacobus brogly.decap >> <jacobusbog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Indeed, Keep the job-post comming)). >>> The nagging is nothing other then the rot is US culture thinking >>> something commercial is (quote) "crap" or "belongs somewhere else."
>>>> Agreed. this post was not spam in my opinion. It was a valid post. Don't >>>> pay to post a ad somewhere.
>>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Jacobus brogly.decap >>>> <jacobusbog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Knowledge on economic activity with node.js is absoluutly crucial in >>>>> having the use of node.js grow! >>>>> Post like this absoluutly belong in this group! >>>>> 2011/6/24 Buzzedword <dgar...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Not to seem the hypocrite, but I'm in agreement with you. The job >>>>>> postings have been getting a bit ridiculous lately, but all the same I feel >>>>>> that we need to make a delineation somewhere. In order for node to succeed, >>>>>> there has to be work with it. As part of the community, we have a >>>>>> responsibility to help it grow-- be it by asking intelligent questions, >>>>>> providing feedback, contributing software, and in certain cases, yes I do >>>>>> believe job postings should also be endorsed. The main difference is that I >>>>>> don't particularly care for cold calls with no background on node, just >>>>>> understanding it's the "next big thing". Full disclosure: for this posting, >>>>>> I receive no commission, no monetary gain, nothing. An associate came to me >>>>>> with this offer, explained what they were looking for, explained what they >>>>>> did NOT want to do (switch entirely to node) and explained what had to be >>>>>> achieved. >>>>>> I felt that an opportunity like this, to be able to take node as not >>>>>> just a primary stack but as a supplementary technology was an enticing >>>>>> promise, and overall felt that it would be a great way to get more exposure >>>>>> to node in resistant markets with low risk. Does it go against everything I >>>>>> believe in to post a job on the list? Yes. Do I feel the benefits to our >>>>>> community outweighed the backlash? Absolutely. I will stand behind that 100 >>>>>> percent. >>>>>> At the same time, I do feel that we need an appropriate outlet for >>>>>> this kind of outreach-- the jobs board is a little steep for raising >>>>>> awareness, which is really all I was attempting to do. >>>>>> So, again, I apologize to all for the construed spam, but I assure you >>>>>> I had our best interest at heart.
>>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "nodejs" group. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nodejs/-/8XbnLJ38OvoJ. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>>> nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en.
>>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "nodejs" group. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>> nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en.
>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "nodejs" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en.
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "nodejs" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "nodejs" group. >> To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote: > Yes, the job board costs money, but it's not in any way a significant > source of revenue. If you really can't afford $100, you *definitely* > can't afford to hire someone. If you're a buzzword spammer, then $100 > is way more than the value you'd gain from annoying us, so it's a good > gate that helps everyone who is honest. Candidates know that the > posts are valid, and positions get taken more seriously.
> If the price tag is actually a blocker for you for some reason, then > please contact me, Tom Hughes-Croucher, or Ryan Dahl, and we'll try to > figure something out.
As I said in the other thread - it's not that $100 is too much, it's that it means companies have to invoice for it, get cost centres involved (HR vs the department you're hiring for), approve the money, etc.
Just make it moderated. That's how jobs.perl.org works and it's a very successful setup.
I agree, make the jobs boards free and just moderate them. Job offers are far less transient than the endless wall of mailing list message rolling through my inbox and into my archived mails. I don't think it makes much sense to keep posting them on here. We just need a good, central location where anyone can post Node.js jobs in a cleaner, more permanent manner. The current job board just needs a bit more love. :)
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote:
>> Yes, the job board costs money, but it's not in any way a significant >> source of revenue. If you really can't afford $100, you *definitely* >> can't afford to hire someone. If you're a buzzword spammer, then $100 >> is way more than the value you'd gain from annoying us, so it's a good >> gate that helps everyone who is honest. Candidates know that the >> posts are valid, and positions get taken more seriously.
>> If the price tag is actually a blocker for you for some reason, then >> please contact me, Tom Hughes-Croucher, or Ryan Dahl, and we'll try to >> figure something out.
> As I said in the other thread - it's not that $100 is too much, it's that > it means companies have to invoice for it, get cost centres involved (HR vs > the department you're hiring for), approve the money, etc.
> Just make it moderated. That's how jobs.perl.org works and it's a very > successful setup.
> I agree, make the jobs boards free and just moderate them. Job offers are > far less transient than the endless wall of mailing list message rolling > through my inbox and into my archived mails. I don't think it makes much > sense to keep posting them on here. We just need a good, central location > where anyone can post Node.js jobs in a cleaner, more permanent manner. The > current job board just needs a bit more love. :)
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote:
>>> Yes, the job board costs money, but it's not in any way a significant >>> source of revenue. If you really can't afford $100, you *definitely* >>> can't afford to hire someone. If you're a buzzword spammer, then $100 >>> is way more than the value you'd gain from annoying us, so it's a good >>> gate that helps everyone who is honest. Candidates know that the >>> posts are valid, and positions get taken more seriously.
>>> If the price tag is actually a blocker for you for some reason, then >>> please contact me, Tom Hughes-Croucher, or Ryan Dahl, and we'll try to >>> figure something out.
>> As I said in the other thread - it's not that $100 is too much, it's that >> it means companies have to invoice for it, get cost centres involved (HR vs >> the department you're hiring for), approve the money, etc.
>> Just make it moderated. That's how jobs.perl.org works and it's a very >> successful setup.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Sotonin <soto...@gmail.com> wrote: > Agreed. make them free. they are worthless as is.
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Stephen Belanger <cyruzdr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> I agree, make the jobs boards free and just moderate them. Job offers are >> far less transient than the endless wall of mailing list message rolling >> through my inbox and into my archived mails. I don't think it makes much >> sense to keep posting them on here. We just need a good, central location >> where anyone can post Node.js jobs in a cleaner, more permanent manner. The >> current job board just needs a bit more love. :)
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote:
>>>> Yes, the job board costs money, but it's not in any way a significant >>>> source of revenue. If you really can't afford $100, you *definitely* >>>> can't afford to hire someone. If you're a buzzword spammer, then $100 >>>> is way more than the value you'd gain from annoying us, so it's a good >>>> gate that helps everyone who is honest. Candidates know that the >>>> posts are valid, and positions get taken more seriously.
>>>> If the price tag is actually a blocker for you for some reason, then >>>> please contact me, Tom Hughes-Croucher, or Ryan Dahl, and we'll try to >>>> figure something out.
>>> As I said in the other thread - it's not that $100 is too much, it's that >>> it means companies have to invoice for it, get cost centres involved (HR vs >>> the department you're hiring for), approve the money, etc.
>>> Just make it moderated. That's how jobs.perl.org works and it's a very >>> successful setup.
That said, I do think that having a revenue stream isn't something that we should be begrudging anyone. I also think that there is value in there being a cost to posting jobs - as a matter of being able to have some assurance that they are serious about hiring someone.
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Roman Land <roman.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 for free. > For jobs outside of the US it might be a long shot to post there, but if > its free I would definitely do that.
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Sotonin <soto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Agreed. make them free. they are worthless as is.
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Stephen Belanger <cyruzdr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> I agree, make the jobs boards free and just moderate them. Job offers are >>> far less transient than the endless wall of mailing list message rolling >>> through my inbox and into my archived mails. I don't think it makes much >>> sense to keep posting them on here. We just need a good, central location >>> where anyone can post Node.js jobs in a cleaner, more permanent manner. The >>> current job board just needs a bit more love. :)
>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote:
>>>>> Yes, the job board costs money, but it's not in any way a significant >>>>> source of revenue. If you really can't afford $100, you *definitely* >>>>> can't afford to hire someone. If you're a buzzword spammer, then $100 >>>>> is way more than the value you'd gain from annoying us, so it's a good >>>>> gate that helps everyone who is honest. Candidates know that the >>>>> posts are valid, and positions get taken more seriously.
>>>>> If the price tag is actually a blocker for you for some reason, then >>>>> please contact me, Tom Hughes-Croucher, or Ryan Dahl, and we'll try to >>>>> figure something out.
>>>> As I said in the other thread - it's not that $100 is too much, it's >>>> that it means companies have to invoice for it, get cost centres involved >>>> (HR vs the department you're hiring for), approve the money, etc.
>>>> Just make it moderated. That's how jobs.perl.org works and it's a very >>>> successful setup.
nodejobs.com would be awesome if people were actually aware of it, but there is no official support for it. Just the paid-for job board listed on the official node website.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Joe Developer <joe.d.develo...@gmail.com>wrote:
> That said, I do think that having a revenue stream isn't something that we > should be begrudging anyone. I also think that there is value in there being > a cost to posting jobs - as a matter of being able to have some assurance > that they are serious about hiring someone.
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Roman Land <roman.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1 for free. >> For jobs outside of the US it might be a long shot to post there, but if >> its free I would definitely do that.
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Sotonin <soto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Agreed. make them free. they are worthless as is.
>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Stephen Belanger <cyruzdr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> I agree, make the jobs boards free and just moderate them. Job offers >>>> are far less transient than the endless wall of mailing list message rolling >>>> through my inbox and into my archived mails. I don't think it makes much >>>> sense to keep posting them on here. We just need a good, central location >>>> where anyone can post Node.js jobs in a cleaner, more permanent manner. The >>>> current job board just needs a bit more love. :)
>>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, the job board costs money, but it's not in any way a significant >>>>>> source of revenue. If you really can't afford $100, you *definitely* >>>>>> can't afford to hire someone. If you're a buzzword spammer, then $100 >>>>>> is way more than the value you'd gain from annoying us, so it's a good >>>>>> gate that helps everyone who is honest. Candidates know that the >>>>>> posts are valid, and positions get taken more seriously.
>>>>>> If the price tag is actually a blocker for you for some reason, then >>>>>> please contact me, Tom Hughes-Croucher, or Ryan Dahl, and we'll try to >>>>>> figure something out.
>>>>> As I said in the other thread - it's not that $100 is too much, it's >>>>> that it means companies have to invoice for it, get cost centres involved >>>>> (HR vs the department you're hiring for), approve the money, etc.
>>>>> Just make it moderated. That's how jobs.perl.org works and it's a very >>>>> successful setup.
we do have a problem with semi-relevant job postings, and more importantly the endless discussion that follows, flooding the list.
we also have another problem. many developers on this list that would like to be working with node.js full time arent. both issues need to be addressed.
the job board is not a solution to either problem. it's not that appealing to developers because it has less relevancy rules than we have on this list. if people take issue with these posts being on this list then why would they want to follow and entire forum for it? and it's not appealing to job posters because nobody is reading it.
here were my previous suggestions for job posting rules:
- must be posted by an engineer at the company that is hiring. no recruiters inside or out of the company. - position must PRIMARILY be working with node.js
if PHP or Java are in the title of a position and node is not, it's not a valid post for this list.
pretty simple but it means that more than half of the latest posts would not have come through.
On Friday, June 24, 2011, Stephen Belanger <cyruzdr...@gmail.com> wrote: > nodejobs.com would be awesome if people were actually aware of it, but there is no official support for it. Just the paid-for job board listed on the official node website.
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Joe Developer <joe.d.develo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There *is* a free jobs board: http://nodejobs.com/ > That said, I do think that having a revenue stream isn't something that we should be begrudging anyone. I also think that there is value in there being a cost to posting jobs - as a matter of being able to have some assurance that they are serious about hiring someone.
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Roman Land <roman.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for free. > For jobs outside of the US it might be a long shot to post there, but if its free I would definitely do that.
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Sotonin <soto...@gmail.com> wrote: > Agreed. make them free. they are worthless as is.
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Stephen Belanger <cyruzdr...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree, make the jobs boards free and just moderate them. Job offers are far less transient than the endless wall of mailing list message rolling through my inbox and into my archived mails. I don't think it makes much sense to keep posting them on here. We just need a good, central location where anyone can post Node.js jobs in a cleaner, more permanent manner. The current job board just needs a bit more love. :)
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote:
> Yes, the job board costs money, but it's not in any way a significant > source of revenue. If you really can't afford $100, you *definitely* > can't afford to hire someone. If you're a buzzword spammer, then $100 > is way more than the value you'd gain from annoying us, so it's a good > gate that helps everyone who is honest. Candidates know that the > posts are valid, and positions get taken more seriously.
> If the price tag is actually a blocker for you for some reason, then > please contact me, Tom Hughes-Croucher, or Ryan Dahl, and we'll try to > figure something out.
> As I said in the other thread - it's not that $100 is too much, it's that it means companies have to invoice for it, get cost centres involved (HR vs the department you're hiring for), approve the money, etc.
> Just make it moderated. That's how jobs.perl.org works and it's a very successful setup. > Matt.
> -- > Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ > Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, v
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:10, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote: > As I said in the other thread - it's not that $100 is too much, it's that it > means companies have to invoice for it, get cost centres involved (HR vs the > department you're hiring for), approve the money, etc.
Yeah. Any company that's serious about hiring someone should be able to find room in their budget to do this. I remain unconvinced that this is actually a blocker for many companies. Feedback from actual hiring managers facing this problem would be helpful.
> Just make it moderated. That's how jobs.perl.org works and it's a very > successful setup.
No one's saying it's going to be for-pay forever, but it's cutting down on noise for now, with very little effort.
If you'd like to post a job offer, and the price tag is a blocker, and you're an actual person who's actually trying to hire a noder to do a job with node, we'd love to hear about your situation.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 13:59, Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rog...@gmail.com> wrote: > we do have a problem with semi-relevant job postings, and more > importantly the endless discussion that follows, flooding the list.
+1! That was my motivation for writing up guidelines.
> the job board is not a solution to either problem. it's not that > appealing to developers because it has less relevancy rules than we > have on this list. if people take issue with these posts being on this > list then why would they want to follow and entire forum for it? and > it's not appealing to job posters because nobody is reading it.
I think that a large part of the problem has to do with the fact that it's not clear that there *is* a job board to someone who hasn't already seen a bunch of these discussions.
> here were my previous suggestions for job posting rules:
It's much simpler to say "post jobs over there, and not here" than to explain what is ok and what isn't. That being said, the guidelines you suggest are pretty reasonable, in my opinion.
But still, if it has to be from a non-recruiter/hr person, and has to be primarily working with node, then that cuts out a lot of jobs that noders would probably still love to hear about. Directing traffic to the job board is a good thing. If you're writing PHP for a day job now, and you could be writing PHP and Node for a day job somewhere else, then that's a net improvement, if your goal is to be working with node.
On Friday, June 24, 2011, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:10, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> As I said in the other thread - it's not that $100 is too much, it's that it >> means companies have to invoice for it, get cost centres involved (HR vs the >> department you're hiring for), approve the money, etc.
> Yeah. Any company that's serious about hiring someone should be able > to find room in their budget to do this. I remain unconvinced that > this is actually a blocker for many companies. Feedback from actual > hiring managers facing this problem would be helpful.
i agree, I fail to see the price tag or paperwork behind spending the money as the real blocker. I think this is a red herring.
the real blocker is that the people who you want to reach won't watch a job board. it's a common hiring dichotomy that the people you want to employ are the least likely to be actively looking for new work. the challenge for us is to find a ruleset that gets relevant posts to a very high value audience without annoying them.
>> Just make it moderated. That's how jobs.perl.org works and it's a very >> successful setup.
> No one's saying it's going to be for-pay forever, but it's cutting > down on noise for now, with very little effort.
> If you'd like to post a job offer, and the price tag is a blocker, and > you're an actual person who's actually trying to hire a noder to do a > job with node, we'd love to hear about your situation.
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 13:59, Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rog...@gmail.com> wrote: >> we do have a problem with semi-relevant job postings, and more >> importantly the endless discussion that follows, flooding the list.
> +1! That was my motivation for writing up guidelines.
>> the job board is not a solution to either problem. it's not that >> appealing to developers because it has less relevancy rules than we >> have on this list. if people take issue with these posts being on this >> list then why would they want to follow and entire forum for it? and >> it's not appealing to job posters because nobody is reading it.
> I think that a large part of the problem has to do with the fact that > it's not clear that there *is* a job board to someone who hasn't > already seen a bunch of these discussions.
that might be part of it, but I would still ask the question: if people don't want that content on this list why would they follow a forum dedicated to it?
>> here were my previous suggestions for job posting rules:
> It's much simpler to say "post jobs over there, and not here" than to > explain what is ok and what isn't. That being said, the guidelines > you suggest are pretty reasonable, in my opinion.
> But still, if it has to be from a non-recruiter/hr person, and has to > be primarily working with node, then that cuts out a lot of jobs that > noders would probably still love to hear about. Directing traffic to > the job board is a good thing. If you're writing PHP for a day job > now, and you could be writing PHP and Node for a day job somewhere > else, then that's a net improvement, if your goal is to be working > with node.
if a recruiter finds our rules and can't find an engineer to post it for them and put their reputation on the line then I don't think it's the type of post we want.
we need to leverage the existing social structure in the place our community *already is* to filter content for relevancy.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:10, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As I said in the other thread - it's not that $100 is too much, it's that > it > > means companies have to invoice for it, get cost centres involved (HR vs > the > > department you're hiring for), approve the money, etc.
> Yeah. Any company that's serious about hiring someone should be able > to find room in their budget to do this. I remain unconvinced that > this is actually a blocker for many companies. Feedback from actual > hiring managers facing this problem would be helpful.
I am involved in the hiring process, I'm not just spouting ideas for the sake of it. Now granted I'm with a super-large company (18k employees), and we're not hiring node people, but here if you're not using a previously approved supplier (in this case a recruitment agency) then good luck getting money approved. It just won't happen.
For startups, sure, it's easy.
If we want more people in node.js jobs (and I think we do), I don't see moderation being that hard (jobs.perl.org gets an average of about 4 jobs a day, 10 max, barely anything weekends). Granted, implementing that might be a bit of work (an extra flag in the DB, and a moderation approval/deny page?), but worth it I think.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 23:46, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote: >> Yeah. Any company that's serious about hiring someone should be able >> to find room in their budget to do this. I remain unconvinced that >> this is actually a blocker for many companies. Feedback from actual >> hiring managers facing this problem would be helpful.
> I am involved in the hiring process, I'm not just spouting ideas for the > sake of it. Now granted I'm with a super-large company (18k employees), and > we're not hiring node people, but here if you're not using a previously > approved supplier (in this case a recruitment agency) then good luck getting > money approved. It just won't happen.
Me too post. I did hiring at a company with 4k employees. Getting a $100 expenditure authorized could easily take over a month there. I should tell you sometime about that one lousy server we wanted provisioned...
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Ben Noordhuis <i...@bnoordhuis.nl> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 23:46, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote: > >> Yeah. Any company that's serious about hiring someone should be able > >> to find room in their budget to do this. I remain unconvinced that > >> this is actually a blocker for many companies. Feedback from actual > >> hiring managers facing this problem would be helpful.
> > I am involved in the hiring process, I'm not just spouting ideas for the > > sake of it. Now granted I'm with a super-large company (18k employees), > and > > we're not hiring node people, but here if you're not using a previously > > approved supplier (in this case a recruitment agency) then good luck > getting > > money approved. It just won't happen.
> Me too post. I did hiring at a company with 4k employees. Getting a > $100 expenditure authorized could easily take over a month there. I > should tell you sometime about that one lousy server we wanted > provisioned...
> Maybe that is for the best then .. is that really something you would wish
I would prefer to see only relevant job postings on this list. I am not going to go looking for them somewhere else, it just isn't something that I will think to do on a regular basis. Out-of-sight, out-of-mind. And I certainly wouldn't subscribe to a jobs-only mailing list and be inundated with a bunch of recruiter crap.
However, if we must use a separate website for posting jobs, why couldn't jobs.nodejs.com or nodejobs.com send out a weekly report to this list? The announcement would provide a list of the job titles posted that week. It could be easily ignored by those who don't care, and would remind others to go check out the job board.
Regarding the cost, I understand the reasoning to charge something to weed out noise. But aren't we trying to foster and grow this community? Setting up barriers like this will probably reduce the number of opportunities. For instance, if I am just looking for someone to help me out with something small for a day on a consulting basis, the $100 fee could represent a good size chunk of my budget. At least until Node becomes a bit more mainstream, it might be wise to not charge a fee.
Lastly, when a company is looking for someone to hire, many don't like to limit themselves to one outlet. Granted, this list is probably the best place to find node developers. But StackOverflow's Careers 2.0 service ($350) might be appealing too. These costs start adding up, especially for a bootstrapped startup. http://careers.stackoverflow.com/jobs?searchTerm=node.js&location=
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Ben Noordhuis <i...@bnoordhuis.nl> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 23:46, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote: >> >> Yeah. Any company that's serious about hiring someone should be able >> >> to find room in their budget to do this. I remain unconvinced that >> >> this is actually a blocker for many companies. Feedback from actual >> >> hiring managers facing this problem would be helpful.
>> > I am involved in the hiring process, I'm not just spouting ideas for the >> > sake of it. Now granted I'm with a super-large company (18k employees), >> > and >> > we're not hiring node people, but here if you're not using a previously >> > approved supplier (in this case a recruitment agency) then good luck >> > getting >> > money approved. It just won't happen.
>> Me too post. I did hiring at a company with 4k employees. Getting a >> $100 expenditure authorized could easily take over a month there. I >> should tell you sometime about that one lousy server we wanted >> provisioned...
> Maybe that is for the best then .. is that really something you would wish > on someone else? ;)
I agree completely. Forcing paid listings kills smaller projects which could be contributing to the growth of the community. Also, sending a weekly digest to the mailing list could work well.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Tauren Mills <tau...@groovee.com> wrote: > +1 for Mikeal's suggestion.
> I would prefer to see only relevant job postings on this list. I am > not going to go looking for them somewhere else, it just isn't > something that I will think to do on a regular basis. Out-of-sight, > out-of-mind. And I certainly wouldn't subscribe to a jobs-only mailing > list and be inundated with a bunch of recruiter crap.
> However, if we must use a separate website for posting jobs, why > couldn't jobs.nodejs.com or nodejobs.com send out a weekly report to > this list? The announcement would provide a list of the job titles > posted that week. It could be easily ignored by those who don't care, > and would remind others to go check out the job board.
> Regarding the cost, I understand the reasoning to charge something to > weed out noise. But aren't we trying to foster and grow this > community? Setting up barriers like this will probably reduce the > number of opportunities. For instance, if I am just looking for > someone to help me out with something small for a day on a consulting > basis, the $100 fee could represent a good size chunk of my budget. At > least until Node becomes a bit more mainstream, it might be wise to > not charge a fee.
> Lastly, when a company is looking for someone to hire, many don't like > to limit themselves to one outlet. Granted, this list is probably the > best place to find node developers. But StackOverflow's Careers 2.0 > service ($350) might be appealing too. These costs start adding up, > especially for a bootstrapped startup. > http://careers.stackoverflow.com/jobs?searchTerm=node.js&location=
> Just my 2c.
> Tauren
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Joe Developer > <joe.d.develo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Ben Noordhuis <i...@bnoordhuis.nl> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 23:46, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote: > >> >> Yeah. Any company that's serious about hiring someone should be able > >> >> to find room in their budget to do this. I remain unconvinced that > >> >> this is actually a blocker for many companies. Feedback from actual > >> >> hiring managers facing this problem would be helpful.
> >> > I am involved in the hiring process, I'm not just spouting ideas for > the > >> > sake of it. Now granted I'm with a super-large company (18k > employees), > >> > and > >> > we're not hiring node people, but here if you're not using a > previously > >> > approved supplier (in this case a recruitment agency) then good luck > >> > getting > >> > money approved. It just won't happen.
> >> Me too post. I did hiring at a company with 4k employees. Getting a > >> $100 expenditure authorized could easily take over a month there. I > >> should tell you sometime about that one lousy server we wanted > >> provisioned...
> > Maybe that is for the best then .. is that really something you would > wish > > on someone else? ;)
Boy, humans sure are fun and surprising. This is so much more controversial than I'd expected. :D
I've heard a lot of opinions today from a bunch of people. Some are definitely more right than others, since they conflict, but I'm not sure which. Here's what we know, and I hope most of this is fairly uncontroversial:
1) A price tag on a job board will prevent some valid jobs from being posted. 2) A price tag on a job board will increase the average validity of the jobs that *are* posted there. 3) Job posts on the mailing list are hard to get right. 4) A job board no one checks is not very valuable to post to. 5) A job board no one posts to is not very valuable to check. 6) The node job board is not well publicized.
For #6, at least, this link in the footer should help a lot:
I don't really see how emails that are "easy to ignore" are any better (in terms of pure publicity) than a job board that no one visits. Clearly, either the emails are not as easy to ignore as the website, or they're not any more useful for an employer.
The community reaction to job posts seems to indicate to me that they're not all that easy to ignore. Node is brand new. I think the number of "pure node.js" jobs out there is pretty slim. There are a lot of jobs, though, that involve a lot of bash and server admin stuff, maybe some python or ruby, some front-end jQuery/html/css type stuff, and so on.
None of this is set in stone. Let's see if the added publicity makes any difference. What I really don't want to do is come up with a set of rules more complicated than "Job posts should go at X", and continue having these drawn out debates about it.
Maybe we need to flip that whole thing on its head, and have a place where noders can post their availability and github info, and get contacted directly.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 16:37, Stephen Belanger <cyruzdr...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > I agree completely. Forcing paid listings kills smaller projects which could > be contributing to the growth of the community. Also, sending a weekly > digest to the mailing list could work well. > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Tauren Mills <tau...@groovee.com> wrote:
>> +1 for Mikeal's suggestion.
>> I would prefer to see only relevant job postings on this list. I am >> not going to go looking for them somewhere else, it just isn't >> something that I will think to do on a regular basis. Out-of-sight, >> out-of-mind. And I certainly wouldn't subscribe to a jobs-only mailing >> list and be inundated with a bunch of recruiter crap.
>> However, if we must use a separate website for posting jobs, why >> couldn't jobs.nodejs.com or nodejobs.com send out a weekly report to >> this list? The announcement would provide a list of the job titles >> posted that week. It could be easily ignored by those who don't care, >> and would remind others to go check out the job board.
>> Regarding the cost, I understand the reasoning to charge something to >> weed out noise. But aren't we trying to foster and grow this >> community? Setting up barriers like this will probably reduce the >> number of opportunities. For instance, if I am just looking for >> someone to help me out with something small for a day on a consulting >> basis, the $100 fee could represent a good size chunk of my budget. At >> least until Node becomes a bit more mainstream, it might be wise to >> not charge a fee.
>> Lastly, when a company is looking for someone to hire, many don't like >> to limit themselves to one outlet. Granted, this list is probably the >> best place to find node developers. But StackOverflow's Careers 2.0 >> service ($350) might be appealing too. These costs start adding up, >> especially for a bootstrapped startup. >> http://careers.stackoverflow.com/jobs?searchTerm=node.js&location=
>> Just my 2c.
>> Tauren
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Joe Developer >> <joe.d.develo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Ben Noordhuis <i...@bnoordhuis.nl> >> > wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 23:46, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote: >> >> >> Yeah. Any company that's serious about hiring someone should be >> >> >> able >> >> >> to find room in their budget to do this. I remain unconvinced that >> >> >> this is actually a blocker for many companies. Feedback from actual >> >> >> hiring managers facing this problem would be helpful.
>> >> > I am involved in the hiring process, I'm not just spouting ideas for >> >> > the >> >> > sake of it. Now granted I'm with a super-large company (18k >> >> > employees), >> >> > and >> >> > we're not hiring node people, but here if you're not using a >> >> > previously >> >> > approved supplier (in this case a recruitment agency) then good luck >> >> > getting >> >> > money approved. It just won't happen.
>> >> Me too post. I did hiring at a company with 4k employees. Getting a >> >> $100 expenditure authorized could easily take over a month there. I >> >> should tell you sometime about that one lousy server we wanted >> >> provisioned...
>> > Maybe that is for the best then .. is that really something you would >> > wish >> > on someone else? ;)
-----Original Message-----
From: Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me>
Sender: nodejs@googlegroups.com
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:00:56 To: <nodejs@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: nodejs@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [nodejs] Job posts and Node.js mailing list guidelines (was:
PHP/MongoDB Developer - Pants optional)
Boy, humans sure are fun and surprising. This is so much more
controversial than I'd expected. :D
I've heard a lot of opinions today from a bunch of people. Some are
definitely more right than others, since they conflict, but I'm not
sure which. Here's what we know, and I hope most of this is fairly
uncontroversial:
1) A price tag on a job board will prevent some valid jobs from being posted.
2) A price tag on a job board will increase the average validity of
the jobs that *are* posted there.
3) Job posts on the mailing list are hard to get right.
4) A job board no one checks is not very valuable to post to.
5) A job board no one posts to is not very valuable to check.
6) The node job board is not well publicized.
For #6, at least, this link in the footer should help a lot:
I don't really see how emails that are "easy to ignore" are any better
(in terms of pure publicity) than a job board that no one visits.
Clearly, either the emails are not as easy to ignore as the website,
or they're not any more useful for an employer.
The community reaction to job posts seems to indicate to me that
they're not all that easy to ignore. Node is brand new. I think the
number of "pure node.js" jobs out there is pretty slim. There are a
lot of jobs, though, that involve a lot of bash and server admin
stuff, maybe some python or ruby, some front-end jQuery/html/css type
stuff, and so on.
None of this is set in stone. Let's see if the added publicity makes
any difference. What I really don't want to do is come up with a set
of rules more complicated than "Job posts should go at X", and
continue having these drawn out debates about it.
Maybe we need to flip that whole thing on its head, and have a place
where noders can post their availability and github info, and get
contacted directly.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 16:37, Stephen Belanger <cyruzdr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
> I agree completely. Forcing paid listings kills smaller projects which could
> be contributing to the growth of the community. Also, sending a weekly
> digest to the mailing list could work well.
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Tauren Mills <tau...@groovee.com> wrote:
>> +1 for Mikeal's suggestion.
>> I would prefer to see only relevant job postings on this list. I am
>> not going to go looking for them somewhere else, it just isn't
>> something that I will think to do on a regular basis. Out-of-sight,
>> out-of-mind. And I certainly wouldn't subscribe to a jobs-only mailing
>> list and be inundated with a bunch of recruiter crap.
>> However, if we must use a separate website for posting jobs, why
>> couldn't jobs.nodejs.com or nodejobs.com send out a weekly report to
>> this list? The announcement would provide a list of the job titles
>> posted that week. It could be easily ignored by those who don't care,
>> and would remind others to go check out the job board.
>> Regarding the cost, I understand the reasoning to charge something to
>> weed out noise. But aren't we trying to foster and grow this
>> community? Setting up barriers like this will probably reduce the
>> number of opportunities. For instance, if I am just looking for
>> someone to help me out with something small for a day on a consulting
>> basis, the $100 fee could represent a good size chunk of my budget. At
>> least until Node becomes a bit more mainstream, it might be wise to
>> not charge a fee.
>> Lastly, when a company is looking for someone to hire, many don't like
>> to limit themselves to one outlet. Granted, this list is probably the
>> best place to find node developers. But StackOverflow's Careers 2.0
>> service ($350) might be appealing too. These costs start adding up,
>> especially for a bootstrapped startup.
>> http://careers.stackoverflow.com/jobs?searchTerm=node.js&location=
>> Just my 2c.
>> Tauren
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Joe Developer
>> <joe.d.develo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Ben Noordhuis <i...@bnoordhuis.nl>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 23:46, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote:
>> >> >> Yeah. Any company that's serious about hiring someone should be
>> >> >> able
>> >> >> to find room in their budget to do this. I remain unconvinced that
>> >> >> this is actually a blocker for many companies. Feedback from actual
>> >> >> hiring managers facing this problem would be helpful.
>> >> > I am involved in the hiring process, I'm not just spouting ideas for
>> >> > the
>> >> > sake of it. Now granted I'm with a super-large company (18k
>> >> > employees),
>> >> > and
>> >> > we're not hiring node people, but here if you're not using a
>> >> > previously
>> >> > approved supplier (in this case a recruitment agency) then good luck
>> >> > getting
>> >> > money approved. It just won't happen.
>> >> Me too post. I did hiring at a company with 4k employees. Getting a
>> >> $100 expenditure authorized could easily take over a month there. I
>> >> should tell you sometime about that one lousy server we wanted
>> >> provisioned...
>> > Maybe that is for the best then .. is that really something you would
>> > wish
>> > on someone else? ;)
I don't know if I like the 'if you don't like it ignore it' thing, but I like the 'sit back and enjoy the ride' part... until things get out of hand. I didn't think the job posts were out of hand yet.
As long as jobs are noted as such '[JOB]', why not. Granted, these posts are probably ot, but so are update announcements '[ANN]' (imo - they aren't code related).
I will probably add the jobs rss to my feeds in diggcatcher (Android app) but I am less likely to look at that than email (donno why - that's just me).
$100 for a job board... whatever. Craigslist is pretty popular around here.
Long of the short: I don't see the issue with job postings here. On Jun 24, 2011 9:07 PM, <h...@neosource.cl> wrote:
> IMHO:
> We do what we do with some idealism. We do it for fun, we do it to
fullfill ourselves someway.
> Methinks that we should be more tolerant, and try to sit back and enjoy the trip.
> What I'm trying to say is: 'if you don't like it, ignore it'. Ranting just
> -----Original Message----- > From: Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> > Sender: nodejs@googlegroups.com > Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:00:56 > To: <nodejs@googlegroups.com> > Reply-To: nodejs@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [nodejs] Job posts and Node.js mailing list guidelines (was: > PHP/MongoDB Developer - Pants optional)
> Boy, humans sure are fun and surprising. This is so much more > controversial than I'd expected. :D
> I've heard a lot of opinions today from a bunch of people. Some are > definitely more right than others, since they conflict, but I'm not > sure which. Here's what we know, and I hope most of this is fairly > uncontroversial:
> 1) A price tag on a job board will prevent some valid jobs from being posted. > 2) A price tag on a job board will increase the average validity of > the jobs that *are* posted there. > 3) Job posts on the mailing list are hard to get right. > 4) A job board no one checks is not very valuable to post to. > 5) A job board no one posts to is not very valuable to check. > 6) The node job board is not well publicized.
> For #6, at least, this link in the footer should help a lot:
> I don't really see how emails that are "easy to ignore" are any better > (in terms of pure publicity) than a job board that no one visits. > Clearly, either the emails are not as easy to ignore as the website, > or they're not any more useful for an employer.
> The community reaction to job posts seems to indicate to me that > they're not all that easy to ignore. Node is brand new. I think the > number of "pure node.js" jobs out there is pretty slim. There are a > lot of jobs, though, that involve a lot of bash and server admin > stuff, maybe some python or ruby, some front-end jQuery/html/css type > stuff, and so on.
> None of this is set in stone. Let's see if the added publicity makes > any difference. What I really don't want to do is come up with a set > of rules more complicated than "Job posts should go at X", and > continue having these drawn out debates about it.
> Maybe we need to flip that whole thing on its head, and have a place > where noders can post their availability and github info, and get > contacted directly.
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 16:37, Stephen Belanger <cyruzdr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> +1 >> I agree completely. Forcing paid listings kills smaller projects which could >> be contributing to the growth of the community. Also, sending a weekly >> digest to the mailing list could work well. >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Tauren Mills <tau...@groovee.com> wrote:
>>> +1 for Mikeal's suggestion.
>>> I would prefer to see only relevant job postings on this list. I am >>> not going to go looking for them somewhere else, it just isn't >>> something that I will think to do on a regular basis. Out-of-sight, >>> out-of-mind. And I certainly wouldn't subscribe to a jobs-only mailing >>> list and be inundated with a bunch of recruiter crap.
>>> However, if we must use a separate website for posting jobs, why >>> couldn't jobs.nodejs.com or nodejobs.com send out a weekly report to >>> this list? The announcement would provide a list of the job titles >>> posted that week. It could be easily ignored by those who don't care, >>> and would remind others to go check out the job board.
>>> Regarding the cost, I understand the reasoning to charge something to >>> weed out noise. But aren't we trying to foster and grow this >>> community? Setting up barriers like this will probably reduce the >>> number of opportunities. For instance, if I am just looking for >>> someone to help me out with something small for a day on a consulting >>> basis, the $100 fee could represent a good size chunk of my budget. At >>> least until Node becomes a bit more mainstream, it might be wise to >>> not charge a fee.
>>> Lastly, when a company is looking for someone to hire, many don't like >>> to limit themselves to one outlet. Granted, this list is probably the >>> best place to find node developers. But StackOverflow's Careers 2.0 >>> service ($350) might be appealing too. These costs start adding up, >>> especially for a bootstrapped startup. >>> http://careers.stackoverflow.com/jobs?searchTerm=node.js&location=
>>> Just my 2c.
>>> Tauren
>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Joe Developer >>> <joe.d.develo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Ben Noordhuis <i...@bnoordhuis.nl> >>> > wrote:
>>> >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 23:46, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote: >>> >> >> Yeah. Any company that's serious about hiring someone should be >>> >> >> able >>> >> >> to find room in their budget to do this. I remain unconvinced that >>> >> >> this is actually a blocker for many companies. Feedback from actual >>> >> >> hiring managers facing this problem would be helpful.
>>> >> > I am involved in the hiring process, I'm not just spouting ideas for >>> >> > the >>> >> > sake of it. Now granted I'm with a super-large company (18k >>> >> > employees), >>> >> > and >>> >> > we're not hiring node people, but here if you're not using a >>> >> > previously >>> >> > approved supplier (in this case a recruitment agency) then good luck >>> >> > getting >>> >> > money approved. It just won't happen.
>>> >> Me too post. I did hiring at a company with 4k employees. Getting a >>> >> $100 expenditure authorized could easily take over a month there. I >>> >> should tell you sometime about that one lousy server we wanted >>> >> provisioned...
>>> > Maybe that is for the best then .. is that really something you would >>> > wish >>> > on someone else? ;)
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
Isaac: what about feeding the valid posts on the job board into the main list for the visibility that many want. That way they meet the screening test, but everyone still sees it.
btw as a tight fisted business owner, I think the $100 fee is perfectly reasonable. Any company involved in hiring should certainly have some ad budget associated with it and if HR can't be convinced that a Node users group is the best place to look for Node programmers, well....
> Boy, humans sure are fun and surprising. This is so much more > controversial than I'd expected. :D
> I've heard a lot of opinions today from a bunch of people. Some are > definitely more right than others, since they conflict, but I'm not > sure which. Here's what we know, and I hope most of this is fairly > uncontroversial:
> 1) A price tag on a job board will prevent some valid jobs from being posted. > 2) A price tag on a job board will increase the average validity of > the jobs that *are* posted there. > 3) Job posts on the mailing list are hard to get right. > 4) A job board no one checks is not very valuable to post to. > 5) A job board no one posts to is not very valuable to check. > 6) The node job board is not well publicized.
> For #6, at least, this link in the footer should help a lot:
>> Job Board:http://jobs.nodejs.org/ > I don't really see how emails that are "easy to ignore" are any better > (in terms of pure publicity) than a job board that no one visits. > Clearly, either the emails are not as easy to ignore as the website, > or they're not any more useful for an employer.
> The community reaction to job posts seems to indicate to me that > they're not all that easy to ignore. Node is brand new. I think the > number of "pure node.js" jobs out there is pretty slim. There are a > lot of jobs, though, that involve a lot of bash and server admin > stuff, maybe some python or ruby, some front-end jQuery/html/css type > stuff, and so on.
> None of this is set in stone. Let's see if the added publicity makes > any difference. What I really don't want to do is come up with a set > of rules more complicated than "Job posts should go at X", and > continue having these drawn out debates about it.
> Maybe we need to flip that whole thing on its head, and have a place > where noders can post their availability and github info, and get > contacted directly.
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 16:37, Stephen Belanger<cyruzdr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> +1 >> I agree completely. Forcing paid listings kills smaller projects which could >> be contributing to the growth of the community. Also, sending a weekly >> digest to the mailing list could work well. >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Tauren Mills<tau...@groovee.com> wrote: >>> +1 for Mikeal's suggestion.
>>> I would prefer to see only relevant job postings on this list. I am >>> not going to go looking for them somewhere else, it just isn't >>> something that I will think to do on a regular basis. Out-of-sight, >>> out-of-mind. And I certainly wouldn't subscribe to a jobs-only mailing >>> list and be inundated with a bunch of recruiter crap.
>>> However, if we must use a separate website for posting jobs, why >>> couldn't jobs.nodejs.com or nodejobs.com send out a weekly report to >>> this list? The announcement would provide a list of the job titles >>> posted that week. It could be easily ignored by those who don't care, >>> and would remind others to go check out the job board.
>>> Regarding the cost, I understand the reasoning to charge something to >>> weed out noise. But aren't we trying to foster and grow this >>> community? Setting up barriers like this will probably reduce the >>> number of opportunities. For instance, if I am just looking for >>> someone to help me out with something small for a day on a consulting >>> basis, the $100 fee could represent a good size chunk of my budget. At >>> least until Node becomes a bit more mainstream, it might be wise to >>> not charge a fee.
>>> Lastly, when a company is looking for someone to hire, many don't like >>> to limit themselves to one outlet. Granted, this list is probably the >>> best place to find node developers. But StackOverflow's Careers 2.0 >>> service ($350) might be appealing too. These costs start adding up, >>> especially for a bootstrapped startup. >>> http://careers.stackoverflow.com/jobs?searchTerm=node.js&location=
>>> Just my 2c.
>>> Tauren
>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Joe Developer >>> <joe.d.develo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Ben Noordhuis<i...@bnoordhuis.nl> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 23:46, Matt<hel...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Isaac Schlueter<i...@izs.me> wrote: >>>>>>> Yeah. Any company that's serious about hiring someone should be >>>>>>> able >>>>>>> to find room in their budget to do this. I remain unconvinced that >>>>>>> this is actually a blocker for many companies. Feedback from actual >>>>>>> hiring managers facing this problem would be helpful. >>>>>> I am involved in the hiring process, I'm not just spouting ideas for >>>>>> the >>>>>> sake of it. Now granted I'm with a super-large company (18k >>>>>> employees), >>>>>> and >>>>>> we're not hiring node people, but here if you're not using a >>>>>> previously >>>>>> approved supplier (in this case a recruitment agency) then good luck >>>>>> getting >>>>>> money approved. It just won't happen. >>>>> Me too post. I did hiring at a company with 4k employees. Getting a >>>>> $100 expenditure authorized could easily take over a month there. I >>>>> should tell you sometime about that one lousy server we wanted >>>>> provisioned...
>>>> Maybe that is for the best then .. is that really something you would >>>> wish >>>> on someone else? ;) >>>>> -- >>>>> Job Board:http://jobs.nodejs.org/ >>>>> Posting guidelines: >>>>> https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "nodejs" group. >>>>> To post to this group, send email tonodejs@googlegroups.com >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>> nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en >>>> -- >>>> Job Board:http://jobs.nodejs.org/ >>>> Posting guidelines: >>>> https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "nodejs" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email tonodejs@googlegroups.com >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote: > Boy, humans sure are fun and surprising. This is so much more > controversial than I'd expected. :D
Always :)
I really liked Mikeal's rules -- and they should be easy enough for developers to follow -- but I agree, they'd still be completely ignored by recruiters and HR types. A possible middle ground occurred to me: don't change anything -- keep the $100 filter in place to post an ad, but make it widely understood in the community that developers can send in job listings at no charge (which it pretty much already is I suspect, but why not make it official).
These job offers are all moderated, of course, and those paying full freight help subsidize this vetting. Once approved all job listings pass immediately through to the main node list automatically -- appropriately prefixed with "[JOB] ", no less. So it's a simple rule -- no jobs are to be *directly*posted to the node list, but can be mailed in to joyent for moderation. I think this addresses all the issues raised -- did I miss any?
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote:
>> Boy, humans sure are fun and surprising. This is so much more >> controversial than I'd expected. :D
> Always :)
> I really liked Mikeal's rules -- and they should be easy enough for > developers to follow -- but I agree, they'd still be completely ignored by > recruiters and HR types. A possible middle ground occurred to me: don't > change anything -- keep the $100 filter in place to post an ad, but make it > widely understood in the community that developers can send in job listings > at no charge (which it pretty much already is I suspect, but why not make it > official).
> These job offers are all moderated, of course, and those paying full > freight help subsidize this vetting. Once approved all job listings pass > immediately through to the main node list automatically -- appropriately > prefixed with "[JOB] ", no less. So it's a simple rule -- no jobs are to be > *directly* posted to the node list, but can be mailed in to joyent for > moderation. I think this addresses all the issues raised -- did I miss any?
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 01:40, Jacobus brogly.decap
<jacobusbog...@gmail.com> wrote: > I dont think Google groups would allow for people charging money (even via a > -"second handshake"-site) > for jobs to be posted here.
I'm not sure, but that's a good point.
Quite apart from how Google would feel about it, though, that just sounds really complicated. It seems a lot simpler to just say "Post jobs at http://jobs.nodejs.org/, and not here. If you want to see job posts, that's where they are."
I think "the policy that would be ideal if everyone followed it" is probably not as good as "the policy that's easy to follow, easy to enforce, and solves most of the problems."
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote:
>>> Boy, humans sure are fun and surprising. This is so much more >>> controversial than I'd expected. :D
>> Always :) >> I really liked Mikeal's rules -- and they should be easy enough for >> developers to follow -- but I agree, they'd still be completely ignored by >> recruiters and HR types. A possible middle ground occurred to me: don't >> change anything -- keep the $100 filter in place to post an ad, but make it >> widely understood in the community that developers can send in job listings >> at no charge (which it pretty much already is I suspect, but why not make it >> official). >> These job offers are all moderated, of course, and those paying full >> freight help subsidize this vetting. Once approved all job listings pass >> immediately through to the main node list automatically -- appropriately >> prefixed with "[JOB] ", no less. So it's a simple rule -- no jobs are to be >> directly posted to the node list, but can be mailed in to joyent for >> moderation. I think this addresses all the issues raised -- did I miss any?
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 01:40, Jacobus brogly.decap > <jacobusbog...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I dont think Google groups would allow for people charging money (even > via a > > -"second handshake"-site) > > for jobs to be posted here.
> I'm not sure, but that's a good point.
They're not posted here -- they're posted on joyent's job board. They'd just be forwarded here. Anyone have a pointer to any possibly related ToS clause? I'd be shocked if this were an actual violation.
> Quite apart from how Google would feel about it, though, that just > sounds really complicated. It seems a lot simpler to just say "Post > jobs at http://jobs.nodejs.org/, and not here. If you want to see job > posts, that's where they are."
> I think "the policy that would be ideal if everyone followed it" is > probably not as good as "the policy that's easy to follow, easy to > enforce, and solves most of the problems."
Well, the policy that's easy to enforce because it's so easy is probably the best. And that would be just like you said -- don't post jobs here. And for the reasons Mikeal pointed out it'd be really nice if jobs posted to joyent's job board get forwarded here. But that'd just be a convenience. The more important point was that it would be a nice gesture if joyent made it known to devs that they could submit node related jobs and have them posted on the joyent job board for free. After all, if it's not about the money (and I trust it isn't -- it ain't much money) what's the big deal?
i don't think the issue people have is with frequency of job posts specifically. this comes up every time something that is irrelevant to a large number of people on the list starts to flood the list. the last one i can remember is the "let's do node but with coroutines" and i was probably freaking out more than anyone.
rules are stupid.
rules take more effort to enforce than they take to follow.
by our current rules you could post a message to the list about every small release of your library you push to npm in an effort to promote it. people don't do that, cause everyone would hate them. people are invested in this list and the community.
we have already established some amount of social capital and best practices that are not documented but somewhat understood by those participating in the list. we should build on that. we shouldn't try to create a set of rigid guidelines for what *can* be on the list but simply document what is not acceptable.
this list is moderated, we can remove posts that flagrantly violate best practices.
if we establish best practices for job posts that leverage the existing social structure of the list it will be, mostly, self enforcing and whatever makes it through by people who are not invested in the list (like recruiters) we can just remove.
let's be honest, nobody is going to look at that job board. as easy as it sounds to "just move all that stuff over there", it's not easy because people want to see *relevant* job posts and they won't watch a separate job board.
i don't want to hear what happily employed developers or recruiters think about these rules, i want to know what people who are employed but casually search for more exciting employment.
also, i'm as concerned with the rest of the rules posted on that wiki page as being too rigid and somewhat bossy as i am concerned with the job posting section.
how about this:
nodejs -- for discussion and help *with* node.js and node.js libraries
nodejs-dev -- for discussion and issues *in* node.js
Rules
- do not be an asshole
- really, don't be an asshole
- no, i'm serious, don't be an asshole
I was just looking at the job board before reading this. It's a
desolate place.
If moderation is (understandably) a pain point for Isaac, how about
choosing some additional admins from trusted associates? That's what
Groups-based lists typically end up doing to combat spam anyway.
I had read backward to the beginning of May last week and I think
there were only 5 or 6 job posts during that time. How many package
announcements were made during the same period?
On Jun 27, 4:17 pm, Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i don't think the issue people have is with frequency of job posts specifically. this comes up every time something that is irrelevant to a large number of people on the list starts to flood the list. the last one i can remember is the "let's do node but with coroutines" and i was probably freaking out more than anyone.
> rules are stupid.
