GCC Compiler Engineer job (I am not a recruiter)

[Mark Mitchell]

Joe Buck wrote:

> I'm inclined to think that it serves gcc if the list can be used to
> recruit people to work on gcc for pay.  Of course an FSF list cannot
> sanction offers for proprietary software development, and I wouldn't want
> to see offers for unrelated software work.

You and Mike have suggested that recruiting GCC developers is a
reasonable use of the list.  Before we go to the SC, asking for approval
to change the policy, we should address some other issues:

1. What do we do if people do advertise jobs that are not free software
jobs, or not purely free software jobs?  How pure is pure?  Does "Port
GCC to proprietary OS" count as free or not?

2. What frequency of posting do we want to allow?

3. How do we enforce any of these rules?

We already have problem (3) for the existing policy, but if we're going
to codify this, we might try to make it more formal.

The history behind the current policy was that we decided that since
these lists are about development, and since effective development
depends on competing companies working together, we'd try to avoid
potentially polarizing commercial commentary and recruiting, e.g. "Come
work at Foo.  We've got the world's best GCC peopl; much better than
those at Bar."  That kind of thing is perfectly reasonable for normal
hiring ads, but obviously inappropriate here.

I'm not opposed to opening up our policy, but I rather wonder if we
shouldn't just use the FSF's job board (which already meets FSF
requirements and is policed by the FSF), and then just allow people to
post links here, when a new job is posted there, or some such.  In that
model, I don't know how to solve the enforcement issue, but we could
post a policy next to the descriptions of the lists.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713