[Gllug] VACANCY: Site Reliability Engineering

Fri Feb 20 16:01:50 UTC 2009

Balbir Thomas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Stephen Nelson-Smith
> <sanelson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> You jest, but a friend of mine is recruiting a junior PHP developer,
>> and is offering about 12K.  He's getting lots of applicants.
>> Obviously junior - just out of school etc, but all the same...
> 
> Question is : Are the members of this list willing to let recruiters
> and companies
> use the resources of this list, to recruit people at wages that don't
> afford them
> a life of dignity, appropriate to their skill level ? Though I am sure
> a lot worse goes on in
> this world, but does that mean we be silent spectators to it, or even
> neutral commentators
> (alas, so it is, Amen!) ? Or should we as Linux/Unix adminstrators and
> developers strive to
> setup basic humane standards of what is and is not acceptable in our
> profession ? I think
> the polite way to refer to such an approach is "exercising our
> collective bargaining power" .

Thanks Balbir. Isn't there such a mixture of new members (not just
"newbies") and old-timers in GLLUG? Breath of fresh air on the one hand,
hard-fought experience on the other... More to the point, an excellent
illustration of how GLLUG consists of a wide range of quite different
people, with varied interests, and at all sorts of stages in career and
'Linux'.

To take up the challenge: I think we SHOULD include SitsVacs on the list
(under conditions).

Finding work in our interest area (nominally "Linux") is indeed relevant
to GLLUG's third initial, and definitely relevant to the number of folk
who have indicated during this thread that they are either needing to
'look' for work or considering jumping-ship.

The original 'advert' here (Site Reliability Engineer) was totally
inappropriate to me. So I hit Delete. This has been the case with most
of the job adverts posted. That doesn't irritate me because there are so
many topics (actively) discussed on this list that just don't appeal, go
over my head, or are outside my interest areas; that hitting delete
isn't out of the ordinary...

What does become irritating is the flurry of msgs which clutter the list
with all manner of personally-felt criticism! Agreed you're earning way
more, have much more experience, and aren't tempted - but do we need to
know that? Does the young/beginner who IS interested gain anything from
the advert? Does (s)he from the moaning? Would (s)he if you said 'look
out for...' or 'ask carefully about...' 'don't get too hopeful when
you're asked back for a second or third or... interview'?

Agreed some adverts have not adhered to stated policy. Why are you
telling the whole list that? I saw that for myself, now you're making it
worse! If you think the ListAdmin folk are asleep at the helm, send your
(private) complaint to them - that's part of their job (such lucky boys
and girls... Incidentally, thanks guys!)

A couple of adverts back, recruitment consultant James was much derided
here. He told us that he didn't operate in the way of a job board/body
shop, which is something I have seen as a problem in London (cf my
experience elsewhere), so I had a personal interest - but likely not in
the advertised job. Like many other msgs on this list, for me, it became
a 'first step' and/or part of a learning experience (isn't that a GLLUG
objective?). Secondly he had written of the possibility of a quid pro
quo for GLLUG, eg sponsoring a meeting or whatever to 'show willing',
and as someone who is trying to help with organising GLLUG's meetings
programme I thought I should follow-through. Likewise he no doubt wanted
to see if it was worth putting me on his books, and is interested in
finding a relationship with GLLUG. There are two sides to every story!
We organised a meeting, and although I have nothing positive to report,
under either heading, was pleased to see that he only has one head and
doesn't speak with a blackened tongue or have a devil's tail hanging out
of the back of his trousers...

The talk of 'money' seems to cause the gorge to rise in some of our
members. However other talk of money within this thread has gone down
rather well! FOSS means "freedom" and we cherish that. However just
because there is some talk of money, doesn't imply freedom has left by
the back door. Should we through the baby out with the bath-water? If we
are hard and fast on salaries being clearly stated, then the next thing
will be the likes of "£20-50,000 depending upon experience" which
adheres to the letter-of-the-law but communicates little of value! OTOH
to allow nothing to be stated leads to easy misunderstanding. How can
the 'level' of a job be otherwise adequately conveyed?

Referring to Balbir's comment about 'collective bargaining power', if
people* don't like jobs being advertised then maybe a group of
ListAdmins (not just one (overworked and possibly feeling-oppressed)
individual) should be set up to vet each advert and request suitable (or
helpful) amendments, as necessary, before publication. Additionally when
cooperation reduces to 'censorship', the ListAdmin 'vetters' could
publish the offending advert and their rationale to the GLLUGadmin
'team' in order to preserve 'open-ness'.
* those people being prepared to volunteer to carry out the role cf
merely sitting on the sidelines carping!

GLLUG has an advertising policy. Maybe it should be reviewed, but likely
not. Again, volunteers?

Ultimately if 'Fred' publishes stupid adverts and fails to impress,
won't we (who feel that way) each note his 'name' and embark on a Delete
policy?

Regards,
=dn

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug