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

Nick Murdoch nick at nivan.net
Wed Dec 7 06:08:37 EST 2016

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:57:51AM +0000, Kaitlyn Tierney wrote:
> I think this is exchange is clear proof that the list requires a Code of Conduct. Does the list-owner agree, and if so, can we discuss a process for enacting one to move this conversation in a more productive direction?


> Kaitlyn
> > On 7 Dec 2016, at 10:55, Cory Benfield (Lukasa) <lukasaoz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >> On 7 Dec 2016, at 10:31, Richard Smith <richard at indigo3.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> What was rude about it? We should expect recruitment agents to do a little work to gain our trust. There are far too many bad agents in the world who think it's acceptable to cold-call, spam, bully, edit CVs, fake candidates and many underhanded activities.
> > 
> > What was rude about it? I will quote you back to yourself:
> > 
> >> It was clear from the OPs post that no thought was put into making the post
> >> and that her intention was simply to float it out there to get some fish
> >> biting.
> >> 
> >> Had Sophie made an effort, perhaps I might have been more accommodating. As
> >> it stands, I've no interest in dealing with lazy recruitment agents.
> > 
> > In these two paragraphs you assert that Sophie is lazy, cynical, and opportunistic. Those assertions are rude. They make no effort to assume the best of other people. They judge a human being’s actions through the lens of their job title alone. That kind of behaviour is uncharitable, and it is rude, and it is frankly below us as a community. While I’m here, I should note that your claim that you weren’t being rude is followed by a discussion about “bad agents […] who think it’s acceptable to cold-call, spam, bully, edit CVs, fake candidates, and many underhanded activities”, when even a most charitable reading of this situation gives you enough evidence to accuse OP of *at most* spamming.
> > 
> > Your disinterest in dealing with lazy recruitment agents is best dealt with by marking the mail as read, adding the sender to a block list, and moving on. But the fact that you feel personally aggrieved by recruiter behaviour does not justify this rant. If you would like to discuss whether recruiter mail should be allowed on this mailing list, feel free. However, you should try to avoid making it personal. Criticise the work, not the messenger. And if I’m wrong about your motives and you genuinely do want to criticise OP, you should be up-front about that rather than pretending you aren’t doing it, and then you should expect that other people on the mailing list will call you out when you do it.
> > 
> > This nonsense is why communities feel the need to put codes of conduct in place. The original incident is long over, with all relevant people having apologised for the various miscommunications. No bad intent was had on either side: it was a classic miscommunication. The incident itself required no CoC to resolve. But rather than let this lie, you appear to have felt the need to make the principled stand that no apology was needed because recruiters are bad people who deserve to be mocked. If that’s your position, then you find yourself at odds with the norms on this list, which allow job posts. You should feel free to change that norm, but you should not assume that you have carte blanche to unload on each recruiter that comes by. Do what the rest of us do and just *ignore it*.
> > 
> > Cory
> > _______________________________________________
> > python-uk mailing list
> > python-uk at python.org
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk
> _______________________________________________
> python-uk mailing list
> python-uk at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

More information about the python-uk mailing list