(Before the flames about off-topic/commercial/whatever posts start, be aware that, before posting, I asked Karsten if he thought this was an appropriate use of the list. His response was that he personally thought people might be interested in job opportunities, but felt my post would be a good opportunity for people to weigh in with their own thoughts on the matter.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
rPath is currently searching for a technical writer to join our team.
The person hired for this position will be responsible for documenting rPath's technologies, such as Conary and rBuilder.
We're looking for people with:
o A well-developed writing style
o Experience documenting complex technical subject matter, from initial concept through final editing
o Strong spelling, grammar, and writing
o The ability to edit and perform peer reviews of others' work
o At least two years of recent Linux experience
o Proven expertise in DocBook (XML or SGML), and HTML
o Familiarity with open source authoring tools for the above formats
o The ability to thrive in a fast-paced work environment (this is a startup, after all)
Any of the following would be a definite plus:
o Linux system administration experience -- even if it's just your own system(s)
o Familiarity with one or more software packaging technologies (such as Conary, RPM, and dpkg)
o Knowledge of XSL/XSLT
o CSS experience
o Familiarity with wikis
o Programming experience (Python preferably)
Writing samples will be requested, so be prepared to give us online pointers, emails bulging with attached PDFs, or even offer to send us a FedEx'ed package full of manuals.
This position is located in Raleigh, NC -- if you're not local, you must be willing to relocate.
Interested? Get in touch with us via this page:
http://www.rpath.com/corp/about/employment/
Uttered "Edward C. Bailey" ed@rpath.com, spake thus:
(Before the flames about off-topic/commercial/whatever posts start, be aware that, before posting, I asked Karsten if he thought this was an appropriate use of the list. His response was that he personally thought people might be interested in job opportunities, but felt my post would be a good opportunity for people to weigh in with their own thoughts on the matter.)
I am in favor of allowing principals-only to make such requests here but I don't think headhunters should be allowed the same grace. Why the difference? I would hate wading through off-topic solicitations, cattle-call resume/CV requests and the like. Allowing first-person requests here will still require that we politely correct any body shop that finds out about it, but that would be OK: we would be protecting our own interests.
Summary: principal or first-person solicitations only, no advertising nor any headhunters.
Your opinion may differ and that's OK with me. I'm not trying to convert anybody.
Cheers
On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 13:24 -0600, Tommy Reynolds wrote:
Summary: principal or first-person solicitations only, no advertising nor any headhunters.
+1
I think this is the time-honored practice of LUGs, right? That is the model I was thinking of.
As Ed's post points out, I didn't feel qualified to decide for all of you what you think. If you have a different opinion, please let us know.
- Karsten
Karsten Wade wrote:
On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 13:24 -0600, Tommy Reynolds wrote:
Summary: principal or first-person solicitations only, no advertising nor any headhunters.
+1
I think this is the time-honored practice of LUGs, right? That is the model I was thinking of.
+1
Such a practice has worked well for many LUGs for many years. I think it is a suitable way to allow limited, targeted offers to reach an audience which will often include capable and interested parties. I think that such a practice is beneficial to both sides.
docs@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Edward C. Bailey -
Karsten Wade -
Patrick W. Barnes -
Tommy Reynolds