[python-uk] python-uk Digest, Vol 160, Issue 13

[Sophie Hendley]

Hey Guys,

I would really like to put an end to this now as everyone is busy, plus its
slightly depressing watching people who don;t know me at all say mean
things about me on here. As a response to anyone thinking we recruiters are
lazy etc I would like to say its very hard to write something that pleases
everyone in an advert. I wrote a very brief description because I didn't
want to send a huge email which you very busy people might not have time to
fully process. My intent was purely to catch anyone who was open to
something news attention then as mentioned they could get in touch and we
could have a nice long chat about the roles over the phone. I have had
complaints from people before both about saying too little and too much in
an advert and you can't please everyone. In fact Linkedin tells us
constantly as recruiters we should keep it short and sweet as evidence
suggests that yields a better response.

I have been working in recruitment for 8 years and I know that we have a
bad reputation but I think its obvious to most you shouldn't judge everyone
by the same standard (if we did the names I've been called on here might
make me dislike every developer I ever met). I love my job and I always try
to do it as honestly and professionally as possible.

I will endeavour to send more info next time as I can see the people on the
group would like that.

Thanks everyone and have a good day.

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 11:08 AM, <python-uk-request at python.org> wrote:

> Send python-uk mailing list submissions to
>         python-uk at python.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         python-uk-request at python.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         python-uk-owner at python.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of python-uk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re:  2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to ?95k
>       (Cory Benfield (Lukasa))
>    2. Re:  2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to ?95k
>       (Kaitlyn Tierney)
>    3. Re:  2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to ?95k
>       (David Wilson)
>    4. Re:  2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to ?95k
>       (Nick Murdoch)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:55:31 +0000
> From: "Cory Benfield (Lukasa)" <lukasaoz at gmail.com>
> To: UK Python Users <python-uk at python.org>
> Subject: Re: [python-uk]  2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to
>         ?95k
> Message-ID: <496A43CE-B702-4C50-997C-BAB833FA565E at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
> > 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:57:51 +0000
> From: Kaitlyn Tierney <kaitlyn.means at gmail.com>
> To: UK Python Users <python-uk at python.org>
> Subject: Re: [python-uk]  2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to
>         ?95k
> Message-ID: <D93DC135-A3B1-46DD-A94D-4D7B225339EE at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 11:00:54 +0000
> From: David Wilson <dw+python-uk at hmmz.org>
> To: UK Python Users <python-uk at python.org>
> Subject: Re: [python-uk]  2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to
>         ?95k
> Message-ID: <20161207110054.GG13262 at k3>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:31:56AM +0000, Richard Smith wrote:
>
> > Ok, lets take the position it wasn't spam. If you received the OPs
> > email, directly, would you require a little more information in the
> > post other than a technology stack and a carrot on a stick?
>
> The way this generally works is to forward a generic CV, wait an hour,
> receive a phone call, then ask every question on your mind. As for why
> it works that way, well, at least recruiters generally have much more to
> lose by sharing their client's name than you do a generic CV.
>
> It sucks but it's the way it is, and anyway it's not that much of a
> hurdle to cross, not least since often things will be shared by
> telephone that nobody in their right mind would commit to page.
>
> The only recruiters who don't follow this pattern are generally those
> working directly for a company, or perhaps less commonly, those with an
> exclusive agreement or structure to provide services to their client,
> and if you only accept solicitation from those then you'd be ignoring
> 90% of the work out there.
>
> (I hate to find myself defending that industry, but in this case it
> seems fair)
>
>
> David
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 11:08:37 +0000
> From: Nick Murdoch <nick at nivan.net>
> To: UK Python Users <python-uk at python.org>
> Subject: Re: [python-uk]  2 Principle Engineer roles in London up to
>         ?95k
> Message-ID: <20161207110837.GF4803 at debian>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> 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?
>
> +1
>
> > 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> python-uk mailing list
> python-uk at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of python-uk Digest, Vol 160, Issue 13
> ******************************************
>



-- 


Sophie Hendley| Principal Consultant| Digital Vision

*M:* 07505145903

*E: *sophie.hendley at digvis.co.uk

*W:* www.digvis.co.uk

Sponsor me please!!!!- https://www.justgiving.com/sophiehendley/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-uk/attachments/20161207/34dee76f/attachment-0001.html>