Looking for experienced RoR developer and project partner

188 views
Skip to first unread message

Skip Spitzer

unread,
Feb 19, 2012, 7:55:27 PM2/19/12
to pdxruby
Hi all,

I've been developing a social-impact Web application with a good
business model and strong earning potential. I've coded roughly 55-60%
of the initial release, which is in alpha, but I would like to shift
my work to content development. I'm looking for a well-organized,
cooperative, reliable, and experienced RoR developer who would like to
get involved as a partner. That is, this opportunity involves
ownership and no initial remuneration. The alpha is partially
accessible here: http://www.dot-orgstrategicplan.com.

If interested, please contact me directly, letting me know a little
about yourself, skill set and experience, and, of course, any
questions you may have.

Best regards,

Skip Spitzer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/skipspitzer

Sam Livingston-Gray

unread,
Feb 19, 2012, 8:20:23 PM2/19/12
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
Apparently this tool will:

"Create strategic and usable strategic plans that can guide your organization toward mission fulfilment"

I do so hate it when those other tools generate non-strategic strategic plans.

--
(Sent from phone; please excuse brevity.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pdxruby" group.
To post to this group, send email to pdx...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pdxruby+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pdxruby?hl=en.

Bill Burcham

unread,
Feb 20, 2012, 12:20:43 AM2/20/12
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
"Create strategic and usable strategic plans that can guide your organization toward mission fulfilment"

Sam wrote:
I do so hate it when those other tools generate non-strategic strategic plans.

Yes and unusable ones too!

We're on a roll.

Sam Goldstein

unread,
Feb 20, 2012, 12:27:02 AM2/20/12
to pdx...@googlegroups.com


On Feb 19, 2012 9:20 PM, "Bill Burcham" <bill.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> from http://www.dot-orgstrategicplan.com/ 
>>
>> "Create strategic and usable strategic plans that can guide your organization toward mission fulfilment"
>

fulfillment needs another l


>
> Sam wrote:
>>
>> I do so hate it when those other tools generate non-strategic strategic plans.
>
>
> Yes and unusable ones too!
>
> We're on a roll.
>

John Wilger

unread,
Feb 20, 2012, 12:52:30 AM2/20/12
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
Beating up recruiters on the list is one thing; how about we not let that slip into discouraging entrepreneurs? Could we maybe keep this kind of criticism on the constructive side?

-- 
Regards,
John Wilger

Skip Spitzer

unread,
Feb 20, 2012, 2:51:38 AM2/20/12
to pdxruby
wow, does this kind of disregard for others (especially new members)
typify this group? social skills, fellas, social skills.

let me help you. if you simply first say a single nice, friendly, or
otherwise agreeable thing, or really anything reflecting a modicum of
respect, then when you add some ribbing that you think is funny, it
will likely be received as good-natured. the best part about this
basic social convention is that your funny thing will be regarded as
good-natured even if it isn't funny! so this is a really fab tip.
later we can talk about emoticons that can help prevent making a
hostile impression.

by the way, your commentary is based on a lack of understanding of the
market: in nonprofit planning it's nearly universally understood that
strategic plans frequently end up not being particularly strategic nor
terribly usable.

skip :)


On Feb 19, 9:20 pm, Bill Burcham <bill.burc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> fromhttp://www.dot-orgstrategicplan.com/
>
> > "Create strategic and usable strategic plans that can guide your
> > organization toward mission fulfilment"
> Sam wrote:
> > I do so hate it when those other tools generate non-strategic strategic
> > plans.
>
> Yes and *unusable* ones too!

Matt Youell

unread,
Feb 20, 2012, 2:53:40 AM2/20/12
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
+1

On 2/19/12 9:52 PM, John Wilger wrote:
> Beating up recruiters on the list is one thing; how about we not let
> that slip into discouraging entrepreneurs? Could we maybe keep this
> kind of criticism on the constructive side?
>
> --
> Regards,
> John Wilger
>

--
-/matt/-
http://youell.com/matt


Sam Livingston-Gray

unread,
Feb 20, 2012, 11:30:08 AM2/20/12
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
I saw the message in the moderation queue, approved it, and then poked
the link because it's been a while since I saw anyone offering work on
an equity basis. I *knew* I shouldn't reply, but I found that
particular phrasing so amusing that I failed my saving throw versus
snark.

I offer my apologies, both to you and to the list in general. I ought
to know better, especially since part of the reason I instigated our
beginners' meetups was because I thought we might be discouraging
newcomers from participating. *facepalm*

On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Skip Spitzer <sk...@rootaction.org> wrote:
> wow, does this kind of disregard for others (especially new members)
> typify this group? social skills, fellas, social skills.

To some extent... yes. We've even had a survey about it:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFBoazg4YTZocGEwNWdMb1BrNGRFbmc6MQ

[snip]

> by the way, your commentary is based on a lack of understanding of the
> market: in nonprofit planning it's nearly universally understood that
> strategic plans frequently end up not being particularly strategic nor
> terribly usable.

That's... more than a little bit sad, actually. Given how overworked
people in the nonprofit world tend to be, it seems a shame that any of
their efforts should go toward activities that aren't actually useful.

-Sam

markus

unread,
Feb 20, 2012, 11:44:22 AM2/20/12
to pdx...@googlegroups.com

> > by the way, your commentary is based on a lack of understanding of the
> > market: in nonprofit planning it's nearly universally understood that
> > strategic plans frequently end up not being particularly strategic nor
> > terribly usable.
>
> That's... more than a little bit sad, actually. Given how overworked
> people in the nonprofit world tend to be, it seems a shame that any of
> their efforts should go toward activities that aren't actually useful.

Not surprising, though. People in the not-for-profit world are
generally motivated by a desire to address direct needs and typically
use something very much like what we call agile. They live at in a high
feedback tactical world, and are often exceptionally good at it. But
when required (by a funding agency, say) to produce A Strategic Plan
they fair no better than most agile developers would if forced to
produce a Product Lifecycle Document or some other waterfall artifact.

If you had to produce Flowcharts or even UML for your code, would you
want to take it on bare handed, or would you want some tooling support?

And, though it can be annoying, it often turns out that pushing people
into looking at things that are familiar to them from a new perspective
can be beneficial in the long term, even if it is painful in the short.

-- Markus


Skip Spitzer

unread,
Feb 22, 2012, 1:03:08 AM2/22/12
to pdxruby
Thanks for this, Sam. I see from the survey you guys have some sport
or something going on with job listings. I was surprised, but not
discouraged--and I enjoyed writing my reply about your social
skills :)

Skip

On Feb 20, 8:30 am, Sam Livingston-Gray <geek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I saw the message in the moderation queue, approved it, and then poked
> the link because it's been a while since I saw anyone offering work on
> an equity basis.  I *knew* I shouldn't reply, but I found that
> particular phrasing so amusing that I failed my saving throw versus
> snark.
>
> I offer my apologies, both to you and to the list in general.  I ought
> to know better, especially since part of the reason I instigated our
> beginners' meetups was because I thought we might be discouraging
> newcomers from participating.  *facepalm*
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Skip Spitzer <s...@rootaction.org> wrote:
> > wow, does this kind of disregard for others (especially new members)
> > typify this group? social skills, fellas, social skills.
>
> To some extent... yes.  We've even had a survey about it:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFBoazg4YTZocGEw...

markus

unread,
Feb 22, 2012, 1:18:55 AM2/22/12
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
S --

> Thanks for this, Sam. I see from the survey you guys have some sport
> or something going on with job listings. I was surprised, but not
> discouraged--and I enjoyed writing my reply about your social
> skills :)

To be fair to the people on the list, this is a forum for discussing
ruby, not a job board, and some of the recruiters who have posted to the
list in the past have been so off topic that it was, really, just spam.
They were (presumably) being paid to find people qualified to fill a
certain job and, instead of working to earn their fee, we simply sending
out gibberish to every list that they could find.

Thus you are sort of in the position of someone who cold-calls a
household with an offer they may actually have had an interest in, but
happens to call shortly after twenty other telemarketers have called.

-- M


Sean McCleary

unread,
Feb 22, 2012, 1:51:49 AM2/22/12
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
I generally don't chime in, but I agree that local entrepreneurs should not be discouraged to post positions on the ruby list. They generally don't have the budget to hire spammy recruiters and reaching out to the list is a somewhat targeted approach to searching for talent on a budget. Programmers who know ruby are generally in high demand right now, and I'm sure that most of us have all the employment we want, but I can't speak for everyone. Ruby programmers are also in an small group of people who currently don't have as much need for jobs as other industries. It is a luxury to be able to poke fun at job offers.

It would be nice to see this mailing list as a place for startups to be able to look for talent. I think supporting our local entrepreneurs is important.

I find recruiter spam as frustrating as most people in the industry, but I generally try to be polite. It can be hard to say with certainty what the future will hold for industry demand and I'd prefer to not burn bridges by being snarky. Our monthly meeting room is sponsored by a consulting firm, Robert Half Technology. It would suck if they got tired of us.

That said, I would not want to see this email group fill up with recruiter spam.

- Sean McCleary


Brian Troutwine

unread,
Feb 22, 2012, 9:59:48 AM2/22/12
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 1:51 AM, Sean McCleary <sea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I generally don't chime in, but I agree that local entrepreneurs should not
> be discouraged to post positions on the ruby list. They generally don't have
> the budget to hire spammy recruiters and reaching out to the list is a
> somewhat targeted approach to searching for talent on a budget. Programmers
> who know ruby are generally in high demand right now, and I'm sure that most
> of us have all the employment we want, but I can't speak for everyone. Ruby
> programmers are also in an small group of people who currently don't have as
> much need for jobs as other industries. It is a luxury to be able to poke
> fun at job offers.
>
> It would be nice to see this mailing list as a place for startups to be able
> to look for talent. I think supporting our local entrepreneurs is important.

On the flip side of this, I'm looking to re-integrate myself into the
Portland scene after having been on the other side of continent for a
few years; I appreciate seeing the non-spam offers. The luxury of
criticism is made more apparent for the relatively low traffic of this
list. (Not being able to attend meetings, my perspective might be
skewed, I admit.)

> I find recruiter spam as frustrating as most people in the industry, but I
> generally try to be polite. It can be hard to say with certainty what the
> future will hold for industry demand and I'd prefer to not burn bridges by
> being snarky. Our monthly meeting room is sponsored by a consulting firm,
> Robert Half Technology. It would suck if they got tired of us.
>
> That said, I would not want to see this email group fill up with recruiter
> spam.

No disagreement. Having a specific mailing list for this purpose would
reduce the offers posted here, but would tend to make pdxruby-jobs
into a wasteland. I can't imagine that few responses would encourage
local folks to keep posting to a jobs-only list.

I submit that it's best to treat job mails as we would any other;
those seen to be wildly counter to prevailing norms should be
_politely_ chastised (probably off-list), those inline encouraged and
discussed. The recent Revisu thread is a fine example, both for
potential job-posters and of community reaction.

--
Brian L. Troutwine

Kerri Miller

unread,
Feb 22, 2012, 10:10:17 AM2/22/12
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
>> That said, I would not want to see this email group fill up with recruiter
>> spam.
>
> No disagreement. Having a specific mailing list for this purpose would
> reduce the offers posted here, but would tend to make pdxruby-jobs
> into a wasteland.

I've got an idea - lets start a new list -- pdxruby-jobs-mockery.
Everybody wins then!

-k-

Phil Tomson

unread,
Feb 23, 2012, 10:05:06 PM2/23/12
to pdx...@googlegroups.com

I can recall 2003 when you'd go to a PDX.rb meeting and 1/2 of the people didn't have any job and the idea of getting paid to code Ruby was still rare...

Too many job postings is a good problem to have.

Dan Robertson

unread,
Feb 23, 2012, 10:41:58 PM2/23/12
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
Great perspective, Phil :). Easy to forget!

-dan

Sent from my phone - so please excuse grammar, spelling, punctuation, & brevity.

Jade Rubick

unread,
Feb 23, 2012, 10:43:22 PM2/23/12
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
+1

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 23, 2012, at 7:05 PM, Phil Tomson <philt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Phillip Kerman

unread,
Feb 24, 2012, 2:51:41 AM2/24/12
to pdx...@googlegroups.com

I’ve noticed a few interesting things about job posts of late. First: there’s a ton of opportunities for ANY kind of programmer.  Also, it’s interesting and refreshing to see companies selling themselves as a good worker knows he/she is hiring their employer in a sense (especially for fulltime work).    Perhaps the one thing that strikes me as odd (maybe it’s not that odd) but I see a lot of very specific requirements.  If I were hiring a programmer for the long term I’d care little about what “stack” they use and more about how they solve programming tasks.  I realize you don’t call the doctor to fix your car—but still… for fulltime especially, do people really need that much specialization?  I haven’t had one project in 20 years where I wasn’t having to learn something new just for that project.  Maybe I’m in the minority in this feeling.

 

Thanks,
Phillip

Sam Livingston-Gray

unread,
Feb 24, 2012, 4:12:42 AM2/24/12
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Phillip Kerman
<philli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...] Perhaps the one thing that strikes me as odd (maybe it’s

> not that odd) but I see a lot of very specific requirements.

I've seen this enough to be used to it, but it *is* odd when I stop to
think about it. (=

As a developer occasionally involved in recruiting, it makes sense to
me to say, "hey, here's what we use," because one of the things I like
about the Ruby community is that we obviously care about our tools.
(For example, knowing that a shop uses HAML tells me something about
their culture, values, and team composition.) However, when this gets
communicated outside the dev team, it quickly turns into a game of
"telephone".

People without technical backgrounds who are involved in hiring
technical staff are often working at a severe disadvantage. The most
clueful ones ask questions and develop a feel for what different bits
of jargon mean, but a dismaying number of recruiters will say things
like "I'm looking for two Ruby contractors with JQuery and RubyMine"
like they're shopping for groceries. (See also:
http://youtu.be/3XGJq8wrw5I )

In a way, though, I find this quite useful: the more rigidly worded
or nonsensical a job posting is, the more likely (IMO) it is that the
company has lots of layers of bureaucracy. The best dev team I've
ever worked on was put together by a manager with a strong development
background who was able to assess candidates' talents and skills, and
actively worked to insulate us from the administrative BS of the
larger organization.

-Sam

Jesse Cooke

unread,
Feb 24, 2012, 10:34:11 AM2/24/12
to pdx...@googlegroups.com

@jc00ke http://jc00ke.com


On Feb 24, 2012 1:13 AM, "Sam Livingston-Gray" <gee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Phillip Kerman
> <philli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...] Perhaps the one thing that strikes me as odd (maybe it’s
> > not that odd) but I see a lot of very specific requirements.
>
> I've seen this enough to be used to it, but it *is* odd when I stop to
> think about it.  (=
>
> As a developer occasionally involved in recruiting, it makes sense to
> me to say, "hey, here's what we use," because one of the things I like
> about the Ruby community is that we obviously care about our tools.
> (For example, knowing that a shop uses HAML tells me something about
> their culture, values, and team composition.)  

What, that they are AWESOME?

> However, when this gets
> communicated outside the dev team, it quickly turns into a game of
> "telephone".
>
> People without technical backgrounds who are involved in hiring
> technical staff are often working at a severe disadvantage.  The most
> clueful ones ask questions and develop a feel for what different bits
> of jargon mean, but a dismaying number of recruiters will say things
> like "I'm looking for two Ruby contractors with JQuery and RubyMine"
> like they're shopping for groceries.  (See also:
> http://youtu.be/3XGJq8wrw5I )
>
> In a way, though, I find this quite useful:  the more rigidly worded
> or nonsensical a job posting is, the more likely (IMO) it is that the
> company has lots of layers of bureaucracy.  The best dev team I've
> ever worked on was put together by a manager with a strong development
> background who was able to assess candidates' talents and skills, and
> actively worked to insulate us from the administrative BS of the
> larger organization.
>
> -Sam
>

Phil Tomson

unread,
Feb 24, 2012, 10:38:18 AM2/24/12
to pdx...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Phillip Kerman
<philli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I’ve noticed a few interesting things about job posts of late. First:
> there’s a ton of opportunities for ANY kind of programmer.  Also, it’s
> interesting and refreshing to see companies selling themselves as a good
> worker knows he/she is hiring their employer in a sense (especially for
> fulltime work).    Perhaps the one thing that strikes me as odd (maybe it’s
> not that odd) but I see a lot of very specific requirements.  If I were
> hiring a programmer for the long term I’d care little about what “stack”
> they use and more about how they solve programming tasks.

Ah, but the key phrase here is "for the long term". I don't think mot
of the job postings I'm seeing here are "for the long term". They're
contracting gigs. The poster needs to get some kind of job done in the
short term.

Phil

> I realize you
> don’t call the doctor to fix your car—but still… for fulltime especially, do
> people really need that much specialization?  I haven’t had one project in
> 20 years where I wasn’t having to learn something new just for that
> project.  Maybe I’m in the minority in this feeling.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Phillip
>

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages