Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!hao!woods
From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: net.jobs,net.news.group
Subject: Re: Job Opening
Message-ID: <1900@hao.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Jan-86 15:34:07 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.1900
Posted: Fri Jan  3 15:34:07 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Jan-86 01:44:21 EST
References: <156@mdee.UUCP> <2673@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 51
Xref: watmath net.jobs:1718 net.news.group:4907

> In response to the referenced posting, I am asking that the net
> be polled as to whether postings of this nature should be allowed
> to continue.

  [It was a job opening announcement]

  I hardly think 6 lines is all that objectionable. Certainly no worse than
people posting their resumes. That article was perfectly in line with the
purpose of the group to which it was posted, and was very short. I don't see
why the big stink.

> The poster of the article is using the net for a *FREE* ride which
> it is not. 

  Not quite, because I think the net at large benefits from having access
to knowing where the jobs are.

> The net needs to decide this with the fastest possible speed, for if
> we do not the net will be flooded with every possible item for sale.

  net.jobs has been around for a long time, and the net has not been "flooded".
Your posting is liable to draw a LOT more traffic than the article in question.

> There is a big difference between an individual posting an article
> to na.forsale and selling that item; and what MDEE is doing with her
> postings.

  Really? What is it?

> If the net cannot decide on this issue, I call for a poll to rmgroup
> net.jobs and create mod.jobs. 

  I'm for that, but only becvause I think that the only way to save the net
is to moderate practically ALL groups, but that's another issue. Even if
we DO eventually create mod.jobs I don't want to see job opening notices
eliminated. Especially since the organization I work for is facing a possible
big budget cut! :-)

> I ask that while the net is deciding the
> issue that a cancel message be sent out on the referenced article and
> MDEE be informed that all further postings from her will not be
> forwarded.

  Since when have we adopted a "guilty until proven innocent" policy?

--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo}
       		        !hao!woods

CSNET: woods@NCAR  ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY