Lambda the Ultimate

It seems to me that if LtU did have a job posting section, we'd probably want to prevent it from becoming an endless list of J2EE positions, which means your rather transparent posting wouldn't be allowed, so you should be happy with the status quo! ;oP

BTW, LtU members who want to link to their resumes can always do so by editing their user page and specifying the URL of their homepage or their resume.

your rather transparent posting wouldn't be allowed

I'm sorry, transparent? The position I'm hiring for doesn't have necessarily anything at all to do with J2EE. In fact, so far, we haven't used a single API from the J2EE spec. The kind of people I'm looking for are those that can write an algorithm to traverse a 40 million node graph with 50 million links in one second, or design a fast and complete spatial index for gigabytes of road network and shape data, or design a new heuristic for the scheduling core that slices out huge portions of dead combinations through a space-time index, etc...

Now if nobody here thinks any of that is interesting, well then, I take my posting back.

BTW, LtU members who want to link to their resumes can always do so by editing their user page and specifying the URL of their homepage or their resume.

So, instead of me posting this job and seeing if anybody was interested, I should have personally harassed every LtU member who has a link to their resume?

I'm sorry, transparent?

Yes. Other than your opening question, "Would it make sense for LtU to have a section where people can put pointers to their resumes and open job positions?", and the subsequent rather content-free justification sentence, the rest of your post was nothing but a job post. The question seemed like little more than an excuse to post a link to your open position. For the record, I did put it down to an excess of enthusiasm, which is why I used the ;oP icon in my post.

Of course, I'm doing a great job as straight man here, since my response seems to have given you the opportunity to give us more details about the position in question. As it turns out, there's more to the position than the very generic, recruiter-like description on your blog. Perhaps it would have been allowed in a hypothetical moderated job posting section after all.

So, instead of me posting this job and seeing if anybody was interested, I should have personally harassed every LtU member who has a link to their resume?

No-one's forcing you to harass anyone. My point about members posting homepage/resume links wasn't really intended to address your requirement, which seems to have been quite well satisfied.

the rest of your post was nothing but a job post

Your insight is absolutely unapproachable. Are you saying that I asked for a job section on LtU, because I was interested in posting a job? That is some amazing intellectual prowess you've displayed there.

there's more to the position than the very generic, recruiter-like description on your blog

I said the job was working with me on transportation and logistics software. If you had bothered to read any of the previous posts on my blog, you'd quickly have formed an acceptable notion of what that entailed.

Of course, I'm doing a great job as straight man here

Do you think I make a single dime regardless who is hired? The only benefit I derive from posting here is the potential to collaborate with a peer.

I'm honestly quite tired of defending my post. If the average LtU reader gets all tied up in knots over being obsequiously petitioned to make a living performing leading edge operations research with cutting edge technology, I withdraw my offering. I would expect this behavior in response to a recruiter, but from a fellow software engineer? I guess it's time to return to rummaging through our recruiters' resumes again.

Are you saying that I asked for a job section on LtU, because I was interested in posting a job?

I'm saying that your primary interest was in posting a job, which you did, and that it seemed as though the question was just an excuse to do so. Perhaps you honestly didn't mean it that way, but that's how it appeared.

If the average LtU reader gets all tied up in knots over being obsequiously petitioned to make a living performing leading edge operations research with cutting edge technology, I withdraw my offering. I would expect this behavior in response to a recruiter, but from a fellow software engineer?

Since you would "expect this behavior in response to a recruiter", why would you expect a different response to behavior that resembles that of a recruiter, right down to the continued buzzword droppings? I'll ponder on that while I work through my disappointment at having presumably scuttled my chances at being employed to perform "leading edge operations research with cutting edge technology".

I originally made a joking remark about your post. I might expect a "fellow software engineer" to take it in good humor, as a fair cop. After all, you characterized your own posting as obsequious. Obsequiousness is essentially a transparent ploy, which brings us right back to the word which you apparently took offense at.

BTW, I obviously don't speak for or otherwise represent "the average LtU reader".

"leading edge operations research with cutting edge technology"

Regardless of how you label those words, they are how I feel the situation is most accurately assessed. We employ three PhDs in operations research who work on our project and avail us of the latest research from others as well as performing their own research. As an example of the kind of information we pour over, take "Faster algorithms for the shortest path problem" (Ahuja et al). If that's not leading edge O/R research, I don't know what is. As far as cutting-edge technology is concerned, we've been making use of JDK 1.5 for over a year before it went FCS by being part of Sun's CAP program. I already had two annotation processors (bytecode rewriters) written well before anybody had even heard of apt. The term "cutting-edge technology" describes the situation where somebody adopts technology that is so new that it is undergoing rapid change and will therefore be "cut" by it. I believe that accurately describes our situation, even if Java isn't your favorite functional research language.

I might expect a "fellow software engineer" to take it in good humor, as a fair cop

In the context of its medium, your tone was far closer to caustic than joking. You came across as implying that I was a recruiter hunting down people to join one of thousands of indistinguishable J2EE CRUD projects. I'm not even going to address the silliness of "a fair cop".

obsequious

Strange. My thesaurus tells me that obsequious means respectful, deferential, polite, considerate. That was the intent I was trying to convey. It appears that we have different understandings of the connotation of that word.

Obsequious has fairly strongly negative connotations; it's not exactly a synonym for "respectful, deferential, polite, considerate" - it means something more like "insincerely and excessively deferential".

"Full of or exhibiting servile compliance; fawning" is the definition offered by Dictionary.com.

So, yeah, it's probably not what you meant.

So, yeah, it's probably not what you meant.

No, obviously not. :)

You came across as implying that I was a recruiter hunting down people to join one of thousands of indistinguishable J2EE CRUD projects.

Which is more or less how your post came across. I didn't say anything about CRUD. It was your blog which mentioned J2EE, without very much additional context. You apparently expected people to read through older blog entries to figure out more of the story.

obsequious

Strange. My thesaurus tells me that obsequious means respectful, deferential, polite, considerate. That was the intent I was trying to convey. It appears that we have different understandings of the connotation of that word.

Try a dictionary. E.g. via m-w.com, "OBSEQUIOUS implies fawning or sycophantic compliance and exaggerated deference of manner". When I wrote "Obsequiousness is essentially a transparent ploy", I wasn't writing a definition: I was saying that when obsequiousness is used, its use is usually transparent. That follows from its "exaggerated" nature: it's easier to detect something that's exaggerated, and that's intentional here, since obsequiousness is a signalling behavior.

Of course, obsequiousness is much more convincing when it's consistent... ;)

You apparently expected people to read through older blog entries to figure out more of the story.

Yes, I had this strange expectation that people who would consider working with me, would read an entry or two in my blog. I admit the entry itself may not have been immediately enticing so, thanks to your feedback, I referenced some of the discussion here.

Try a dictionary.

Now that the discussion has been reduced to quibbling over the connotation of a single word (dictionary vs. thesaurus) I've used in a post, I think I've spent enough time in elaboration. I can now rest contently, knowing that I've conveyed the appropriate details thanks to Anton's gracious participation.

So this part is ok.

Fair enough. Thanks Ehud.