Quoting Michael Paoli (Michael.Paoli@cal.berkeley.edu):
[balug-talk:]
But as it's unmoderated discussion, if/when "job postings" policy (or lack thereof) for "talk" becomes an issue, we can always tweak/adjust policy as appropriate for that list.
This seems like the emerging consensus.
E.g. if we see a long "hot" thread there with lots of participants and a definitive plurality or better on direction things should take, then we can take such direction.
Just a comment: You don't get "threads" with jobs postings, typically -- which points to one reason why they're a bit out of place: They're completely disconnected from all Linux discussion -- like advertising spots among programming. That's because, well, they _are_ advertising, for which none of us gets paid. (_Generally_ speaking, the people who post job ads never post on any other topic, and have no interest in the LUG other than as a free advertising medium.)
The other problem, which has not lately been a problem at BALUG, is quantity. I.e., during the boom, scattershot jobs postings from (in particular) professional recruiters swamped LUG mailing lists. Many of those postigns were ludicrously inappropriate, e.g., ads for Microsoft Exchange administrators. It became evident that many recruiters were just carpet-bombing all the vaguely technical mailing lists they knew of, and paying no attention to what each list is _about_.
After several years of IT downturn, we've been seeing a small boom in jobs postings again (and still trending upwards), which is what got me concerned. Bear in mind that most of you won't have seen a lot of the early signs: A recent small flood of clue-deficient recruiters have been blitzing LUG _announce_ mailing lists with things like "Hi, would you please put this job posting on your Web site?"
Experience suggests that those people cannot be taught manners and competence: There's no percentage in it, for them. Like spammers, they just make it up in volume.