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

Steve Holden steve at holdenweb.com
Wed Dec 7 07:22:21 EST 2016

Since this list is run via a python.org server I'd imagine there's at least
implicit consent by members to the Python Community Code of Conduct at
https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/. The three headings are "Open,"
"Considerate" and "Respectful". Clearly there is no agreement on those
terms and whether they can be applied to specific commnications. Without
such agreement no commonly acceptable standard of behaviour can be

If anyone feels the need to start discussions on any other CoC than the one
linked above I will, having spent almost two years of my life establishing
the PSF Diversity Statement and Code of Conduct, leave this list rather
than filter out the correspondence. Take it from one who knows, while the
aim is laudable you have many better things to do with your time. Of course
it's entirely possible this will cause greater numbers to agitate FOR a new
CoC ...


Steve Holden

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Nick Murdoch <nick at nivan.net> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> python-uk mailing list
> python-uk at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-uk/attachments/20161207/d2ffa294/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the python-uk mailing list