list
Sent: Monday, 18 June 2012, 22:30
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Recruiting for the Developer
On 18/06/2012 15:41, Thomas Morton wrote:
> On the other hand you have a major asset in that several community members do
> have this experience - and might be interested in a robust volun
On 18/06/2012 15:41, Thomas Morton wrote:
On the other hand you have a major asset in that several community
members do have this experience - and might be interested in a robust
volunteer driven model.
Contracting the specific expertise needed, whilst developing a robust
community department
On 18 June 2012 22:09, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Yes, this is basically what I am driving at. If the long term aim is to
> expand the department we should outline those goals *now* and hire someone
> with those goals at the forefront.
+1. If it were anything to do with me, I'd say hire a CTO who ca
On 18 June 2012 21:55, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 18 June 2012 20:58, Charles Matthews
> wrote:
> > But Tom M. hit the nail on the head: don't go the dogsbody route. I.e.
> > if anyone argues as Tom D. does, which strikes me as reasonable, don't
> > define the job in such a way as to offer zero c
On 18/06/12 21:28, Michael Peel wrote:
P.S. Charles's experiences with being a WMUK employee aren't particularly
relevant here since WMUK has changed*significantly* since then. Charles, I
would very much recommend visiting the WMUK office and having a chat with Jon
about our current managemen
On 18 June 2012 20:58, Charles Matthews wrote:
> But Tom M. hit the nail on the head: don't go the dogsbody route. I.e.
> if anyone argues as Tom D. does, which strikes me as reasonable, don't
> define the job in such a way as to offer zero career development. Make
> it a real job, from the start.
On 18 June 2012 21:41, Chris Keating wrote:
>>
>> MW development is a whole job in itself. From experience; it's hard to
>> work meaningfully on a major project (such as that) whilst also doing
>> smaller bits of work (like outreach, sysadmin, smaller development tasks).
>
>
> Why is that, out of
On 18 June 2012 21:41, Chris Keating wrote:
>
>> MW development is a whole job in itself. From experience; it's hard to
>> work meaningfully on a major project (such as that) whilst also doing
>> smaller bits of work (like outreach, sysadmin, smaller development tasks).
>>
>
> Why is that, out o
>
>
> MW development is a whole job in itself. From experience; it's hard to
> work meaningfully on a major project (such as that) whilst also doing
> smaller bits of work (like outreach, sysadmin, smaller development tasks).
>
Why is that, out of interest?
But anyway - Mike has posted the Board
On 18 June 2012 21:28, Michael Peel wrote:
> P.S. Charles's experiences with being a WMUK employee aren't particularly
> relevant here since WMUK has changed *significantly* since then. Charles, I
> would very much recommend visiting the WMUK office and having a chat with Jon
> about our cur
Hi all,
So, there are many questions here, and I'm afraid that I don't have the time to
answer them all right now in the detail they deserve. :-( So this is a reply to
some of the key aspects, and I'll try to follow up on the others when I have a
bit more time available.
I'm very aware that th
On 18 June 2012 20:46, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 18 June 2012 20:38, Thomas Morton wrote:
>> Finding make work is inefficient.
>
> I'm not talking about finding make work. I'm talking about real,
> productive work that you hadn't thought of before but that inevitably
> comes up as soon as you hav
On 18 June 2012 20:38, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Finding make work is inefficient.
I'm not talking about finding make work. I'm talking about real,
productive work that you hadn't thought of before but that inevitably
comes up as soon as you have scope to do it.
Finding make work is inefficient. Especially if you hire them knowing
you have 0.8 FTE, but find they lack the experience to perform a
quarter of that.
It's better to figure out the work in order of importance (I.e we must
achieve this by year end, or this is not so important) ten figure out
how t
On 18 June 2012 19:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 18 June 2012 19:15, Charles Matthews
> wrote:
>> On 18 June 2012 18:12, Thomas Morton wrote:
>>
>> [things that make sense to me]
>>
>> I'd also like to see quantification. Is the current provable need 0.7
>> of a person or 1.5 persons? I'm still
On 18 June 2012 19:15, Charles Matthews wrote:
> On 18 June 2012 18:12, Thomas Morton wrote:
>
> [things that make sense to me]
>
> I'd also like to see quantification. Is the current provable need 0.7
> of a person or 1.5 persons? I'm still enough of a mathematician to
> think that it's unlikely
On 18 June 2012 18:12, Thomas Morton wrote:
[things that make sense to me]
I'd also like to see quantification. Is the current provable need 0.7
of a person or 1.5 persons? I'm still enough of a mathematician to
think that it's unlikely to be a whole number (and I guess Tom D. is
too).
Charles
On 18 June 2012 17:48, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 18 June 2012 15:41, Thomas Morton wrote:
> > One of my experiences in around the last 18 months is that smaller
> companies
> > (which we are, lets face it) start out contracting technical work
> because it
> > is significantly cheaper.
>
> Is it?
On 18 June 2012 17:44, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 18 June 2012 15:28, Charles Matthews
> wrote:
>> No amount of corporate jargon and/or penny-pinching can cover up not
>> getting the right person for the job because the position is a vaguish
>> proposition. So I think Tom has a point.
>
> I don't
On 18 June 2012 15:41, Thomas Morton wrote:
> One of my experiences in around the last 18 months is that smaller companies
> (which we are, lets face it) start out contracting technical work because it
> is significantly cheaper.
Is it? I don't know about developers specifically, but generally
sp
On 18 June 2012 15:28, Charles Matthews wrote:
> No amount of corporate jargon and/or penny-pinching can cover up not
> getting the right person for the job because the position is a vaguish
> proposition. So I think Tom has a point.
I don't think the problem is a vague position. It's our first t
not technically competent enough to do
much more than facilitate discussion).
Harry
From: Thomas Morton
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
Sent: Monday, 18 June 2012, 15:41
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Recruiting for the Developer
On 18 June 2012 15:28, Charle
On 18 June 2012 15:28, Charles Matthews wrote:
> On 18 June 2012 15:17, HJ Mitchell wrote:
> > I may be wrong, but I suspect the idea is to aim high, hoping but not
> > expecting that somebody will apply who meets all the criteria, and
> failing
> > that, that we'll get somebody who meets most of
On 18 June 2012 15:17, HJ Mitchell wrote:
> I may be wrong, but I suspect the idea is to aim high, hoping but not
> expecting that somebody will apply who meets all the criteria, and failing
> that, that we'll get somebody who meets most of the criteria and could pick
> up or be trained in the the
Harry
From: Thomas Morton
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
Sent: Monday, 18 June 2012, 14:51
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Recruiting for the Developer
> there are even bigger images
correction: there are even bigger issues
(I said I was in a rush)
Tom
On 18 June 2012 14:49
On 18 June 2012 14:49, Thomas Morton wrote:
> You seem to be looking for someone extremely versatile, experienced
> and independent... on a very entry level salary packet.
Yup, this is what the company does. I have a problem with it if it
means the actual need hasn't been clearly identified. (
On 18 June 2012 14:55, Stevie Benton wrote:
> It certainly did make all the difference for me, and I didn't mind the pay
> cut either. I think it all depends on what motivates people.
I don't know what pay cut you took; and I don't intend to ask! :)
But at minimum you're expecting someone to t
On 18 June 2012 14:55, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> You seem to be saying both that there is too much work, so there won't be
> time for mediawiki development, and that there is too little work so
> they'll be twiddling their thumbs. Which is it?
>
Both.
MW development is a whole job in itself. From
You seem to be saying both that there is too much work, so there won't be
time for mediawiki development, and that there is too little work so
they'll be twiddling their thumbs. Which is it?
On Jun 18, 2012 2:49 PM, "Thomas Morton"
wrote:
> Looking at the job description I have some concerns that
It certainly did make all the difference for me, and I didn't mind the pay
cut either. I think it all depends on what motivates people.
Stevie
On 18 June 2012 14:51, Jon Davies wrote:
> Food for thought - surely the lure of working for Wikipedia with free
> fruit tea and coffee will make ALL th
Food for thought - surely the lure of working for Wikipedia with free fruit
tea and coffee will make ALL the difference?
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Looking at the job description I have some concerns that it has been
> written without the input of someone experienced
> there are even bigger images
correction: there are even bigger issues
(I said I was in a rush)
Tom
On 18 June 2012 14:49, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Looking at the job description I have some concerns that it has been
> written without the input of someone experienced in hiring individuals for
Looking at the job description I have some concerns that it has been
written without the input of someone experienced in hiring individuals for
technical or pseudo-technical roles - especially in the current economic
climate.
You seem to be looking for someone extremely versatile, experienced
and
We will shortly be advertising for our developer post. We will be spreading
the word far and wide, especially within the community, but all suggestions
gratefully received.
So far (outside leads:
Mozilla
Tech hub
Civi-CRM
Google academy
Thanks
Jon
--
*Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*
34 matches
Mail list logo
