[Gllug] Camalyn Vacancy Posts
holland.james at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Jan 30 01:25:45 UTC 2009
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 22:29 +0000, Martin A. Brooks wrote:
> Hello James
> ( CC'd GLLUG, right to reply and all that )
> jt at camalyn.org wrote:
> > I don't think that I will ever post to the list again.
> Your choice, your loss also.
> > I did try and advise that Camalyn was not an agency and that we do not recruit for
> > positions that have a salary or budget in place for.
> You patently act as an agency, whilst simulatenously denying your need
> to act as we ask one to on-list.
> > Its a shame as I have met some very interesting people via the list,
> > perhaps we may have met in the future ourselves.
> Time travel. Interesting.
> > To suggest that I am a disgrace to my company and my profession is very
> > harsh especially when you have never met me or worked with me.
> Wrong. I have been on the receiving end of your attempts to randomly
> recruit people.
> > If you would like to meet with me for a coffee let me know and I we can
> > discuss in person - consequently you may gain a better understanding of
> > how I work and understand that the roles and method of recruitment I use
> > means that the salary/ budget is not particularly of importance to the
> > client, instead the actual person which is why I spend so long meeting
> > candidates and clients and take extremely detailed job descriptions in
> > person.
> Yet these "extremely detailed job descriptions" don't tend to include
> company names, or responsibility specifics, or locations, or salary.
> This is the end of this conversation.
I am shocked by the intolerance shown on this list. What is one or two
emails that violate the faq? It might mean a job for someone, which is
to be valued in the current climate.
What about re-discussing the rules? Surely with any community these
could evolve over time??
Maybe another topic for discussion on Saturday???
Gllug mailing list - Gllug at gllug.org.uk
More information about the GLLUG