| 1 |
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:27 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 06/01/17 22:22, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 01/06/2017 10:49 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> When it comes to recruiting there is quite allot. I do not think anyone will |
| 5 |
>>> say the recruitment process is expeditious. |
| 6 |
>> I can say so, becoming a dev is rather easy :) |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> I respectfully disagree .. and having seen enough potential candidates |
| 9 |
> dismissed or rescinded their applications, I have evidence to the |
| 10 |
> contrary ... |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Well, applicants who are dismissed have just met one of the two |
| 14 |
possible outcomes of the process. That isn't really a failure of the |
| 15 |
process. That is assuming I understand what you meant by "dismissed." |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Now, applicants who give up is potentially a different matter. I'm |
| 18 |
not sure how much of that is just general backlog vs a form of |
| 19 |
selection. I don't know what the current process is but my sense at |
| 20 |
least in the past was that recruiters didn't necessarily interview |
| 21 |
candidates in the order they applied but rather prioritized those they |
| 22 |
considered most likely to be accepted, so if there was any backlog |
| 23 |
somebody could wait a long time to get into the process if they |
| 24 |
weren't considered a strong candidate. While the prioritization |
| 25 |
probably makes sense it would be ideal to at least get them through |
| 26 |
the process even if it just results in them being dismissed at the |
| 27 |
end. Obviously there isn't a lot of value in doing that vs processing |
| 28 |
another more recent candidate who actually gets accepted. The only |
| 29 |
way to prevent people from waiting forever would be to increase the |
| 30 |
number of recruiters, and that obviously requires people to volunteer. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Rich |
Archives