Looking for a Job? Let GitHub Help
github.com
github.com
If I am looking for a new job I'm generally not going to put that information anywhere my employer might find it because then I'd be concerned that the urgency of my job search might suddenly increase substantially. Therefore I don't want to put my information anywhere where employers might search and find me.
Yes, they can put something on it to say, "Employer can't find their own employees." But that is too easy to circumvent either on purpose or accidentally through a clueless recruiter.
I'd want to see the design of phase 2 before deciding whether I'd dare participate in phase 1.
I'd suggest they lose the "available for hire" box.
Prospective employees pay nothing. They are not the customers of this system. It will serve their interests... when it is reasonably practical to do so without trodding on the toes of the paying customers.
Prospective employers are not worried that prospective employees might find themselves suddenly separated from their previous employer -- indeed, that is sort of the general idea.
I hope they figure it out before that situation arises. But until I'm confident that they understand that, I won't be comfortable with that service.
This way - the employers get a good result on their search for prospective hires and employees get plausible denaibility.
The data on skillsets (resume info) is what the prospective employer is looking for. Whether or not the person who posted it is "actively looking" is not so relevant.
If the employee was one they were looking to get rid of, then silently let them find a new job. Otherwise, your employer's concern should be why they are about to lose you, not that you want to leave. It's not like they own you. You agreed to work for them and they agreed to hire you.
If they were smart about it, they would provide you, in writing before you even accepted their job offer, an agreement that they won't penalize you in any way for looking for a better job for yourself. Things change. Jobs get less fun/interesting. Your interests change. If your employer can no longer provide you with the things you're looking for, you have every right to find one who can. They would certainly let you go if you could no longer provide them with the things they're looking for.
Why are workplaces run like prisons? This kind of stuff really bothers me.
Sorry, but that is not necessarily true.
If an employee is actively looking for a new job, then the employer should assume that that employee will find a new job at some point. At that point it becomes a question of whose terms that happens on.
If it happens on the employee's terms then the employer is suddenly out an employee and starting the hiring process. Which leaves the employer with a hole in their organizational structure, and stresses the people who remain. By contrast if it happens on the employer's terms then the employer hires a new employee to replace the old, trains that employee, then gets rid of the old. The employer now no longer suffers that painful gap.
From the employer's point of view happening on the employer's terms is much better than happening on the employee's. So if an employer discovers that an employee is unhappy enough to be actively searching, they should start the replacement process immediately. And once the replacement is ready, let go of the redundant dissatisfied employee.
That is how the employer, acting rationally out of their own best interest, will usually behave.
If they were smart about it, they would provide you, in writing before you even accepted their job offer, an agreement that they won't penalize you in any way for looking for a better job for yourself. Things change. Jobs get less fun/interesting. Your interests change. If your employer can no longer provide you with the things you're looking for, you have every right to find one who can. They would certainly let you go if you could no longer provide them with the things they're looking for.
Why are workplaces run like prisons? This kind of stuff really bothers me.
You're drawing the wrong analogy. Employee-employer is a type of relationship. Compare with other kinds of relationships and life is much more reasonable. If you're dating someone seriously and you find that they are actively looking for another relationship, what is your reaction going to be?
People change, relationships get less fun/interesting. Your interests change. You have a right to try to find someone who meets your needs. This is all absolutely true. But if your current significant other finds out that you're looking for a replacement, can you blame them for rethinking the existing relationship?
Sure, the party who finds out last will feel hurt (possibly betrayed) in the short term, but it's much better than staying in a job/relationship that only one party is interested in continuing. The other party will only grow more unhappy until they can't stand it anymore and will forcefully try to end the relationship anyway, except in a much uglier way.
Of course your emotions, as all of this is going down, will often make this kind of rationalization difficult to see.
GitHub has a lot of little hidden features these days. The ability to do code review is there, but very hidden, any plans for improving that workflow? On the topic of hidden features is there a graph showing off what features people use (and don't?) I was recently told about one that has been around for a long time that I just didn't know about. no doubt there are others.
But then it occurred to me that maybe doing cut and paste from webpage A to webpage B is a missing feature.
I dont think microformats or frames answer this need well.
It seems the most basic feature of a web mashup, so why dont we see this as a trivial standard?
<div src=url id=div_id />
Ive used plone before as a companywide repo for project docs, but one feature I wanted was to do this for subsections of a page. This would have solved that problem.
Differences :
granularity - share one div, not whole page
scope - how should javascript interact between the inclusion and the whole page? [ Im not sure.. this wasn't on the radar when iframes were designed I guess ]