Last week at ApacheCon I called together a BOF "Birds of a Feather" session to discuss the open source job market. I wanted to get a feel for what people were seeing out there in the industry. Not surprisingly, I heard that things are tough. Quite a few people attending the session indicated that they have been looking around for some time. It was also clear that this room had some talented engineers who specialize in apache development. In most cases, having the ability to work virtually could have proven to be a big win-win. However, despite out techno-focused workplaces, doing your job off site is still a hard pill to swallow for a lot of companies. I can see why and really can't argue that it's better to allow off-site workers. Let's face it, there is simply something to be said about that face-to-face contact. However, if you build a design methodogy/process where virtual workers are encouraged, there are some truly amazing people out there waiting to hear from you...

Great day at the ApacheCon conference. A lot of tremendously bright, fun, and interesting apache engineers made their way to Las Vegas for the big event. Great presentations covering all things Apache. My focus was the mod_perl work (great presentaton today by Geoffrey Young). Looking forward to Stas' presentation tomorrow. Tomorrow morning I requested a "Birds of a Feather" (i.e., BOF) session to discuss current trends in the job market in the open source web development community. Stay tuned... tomorrow I'll report on this meeting which should be quite interesting since apache developers cover most programming languages (e.g., perl, java, PHP, python, ruby, etc.).

OK, let's address the money issue again! I've been thinking this over since there are many different angles on this question. How is an employer to respond to a candidate who is applying for a position with a significantly lower level of required skills than the candidate actually has? As an example, if you've been a senior developer in your last four jobs and you have 15 years of development experience under your belt, what is the proper reaction to you applying for an associate- to mid-level position?

1. You're clearly not mid-level


2. You were, in all likelihood, making significantly more money in your previous jobs


3. You probably were used to using a lot of brain power and not doing as much grunt work

Honestly, I don't have a solid answer for this. If the market is tight, you might be considered a real "bargain" if you'll drop your salary requirements. On the other hand, if the market picks up, let's face it, you'll bolt!

This is very similar to the situation an employer faces when considering a consultant who has suddenly seen the light and decides that going regular hire fits his/her present needs. Let's face it, it only fits their present needs because the market stinks and there's no work. Again, if that market perks up, KAAABOOOM! they're out of there like they were shot from a cannon.

Neither situation is ideal if your goal is to build a balanced, stable team. Any comments?

Word of advice for the day... OK, you've seen our job description posted somewhere. As you read it you say to yourself "Done that... yep, done that too... well, kinda did that but could learn it..." Why waste all of that good mental energy? Normally, you'll go through that process and when your done, you'll blast off a dry generic resume through the wonders of the net. And then you wait...

I would suggest that you take these thoughts and get them down in a small chart for me. At the top of your resume, make a table. On the left put what we're looking for. On the right put what you've done that makes you a match. Keep going through the job description and go through this analysis for each major requirement. Be sure to put in the essential "third dimension" in your responses (how many servers, how many people on your team, for how long, when, etc.). Keep the response sections short and concise but with enough information so I'll really see the fit.

I would suggest putting this on the top of your resume so we can't miss it. I know it's against all rules of resume writing but heck, unique times require unique solutions. This also keeps your "My fit" chart from getting separated from your resume. This can happen when a recruiter forwards the resume and just leaves out a cover letter or separate document (often, just the resume is passed on). Also, documents in addition to a resume can be ignored by text parsing engines and even the recruiter doesn't really see the effort you took to point out how perfect a match you are. Keep it short, and to the point, and right at the top of the resume. I personally think that it shows that you took the time and brain power to prove that you're a good match. ;)

Response to my previous posting on the baylisa mail list. NOTE: Company name change to protect the innocent ;)

I was laid off at XXX in December 2000. There were a couple of people who had relocated to work at XXX and had been there 2 weeks when they got laid off.

It cuts both ways. Employers really don't give a f@#% about us. All they care about is getting the job done for as little as possible. It's all a "business decision". Nobody should be surprised when we, as individuals, make a "business decision". It should never be personal...

I think his anger is understandable. My response is as follows:

Agreed. I don't disagree with you at all. The lack of any common trust between and employer and employee is, I think, hurting the whole workforce. I do have to agree that it was the employers in the early '90's who started this with massive lay-offs to meet a bottom line. Unfortunately, the years of doing a good job, keeping the job, and retiring with the gold watch appear to be mostly over.

Regardless, it does make this hard for both sides when everything basically becomes a "business decision." Both sides are forced to simply feel things out and play the odds. I HATE playing games but feel like everything has turned into one.

Good point.

This was originally a posting to the baylisa mail list (a list for local admins in the bay area) in response to a discussion about the scarcity of jobs. Thought it would be worth repeating here...

Again, I'll throw my few cents in here. I have to agree with one previous comment that you have to be willing to relocate if you're pushed against the wall for work. Here in LA I have been looking for very senior admins with large dot-com exposure and really it hasn't been easy to find people with the required depth of skills. The jobs are out there.

On the other hand, employers are a little leery about making offers to long-distance folks who promise to make a move. I can give you a number of instances where the deal was done, the offer extended (and accepted!) and then a day before the person is to arrive, they back out. It's understandable. People have their roots in their current location and a move is hard. Backing out at the last minute is still devastating to recruiting efforts so nobody wants that situation. It doesn't help the employee or employer.

What can you do? You can show that you have some roots in the hometown of the potential new employer. If you went to school there, make sure you mention it! If you have friends or relatives local to the new employer, mention it! Even if you've visited previously and got a chance to really look around, mention it!

Another good thing to do is to plan your own trips to places you'd consider relocating. Mention during a phone interview that you're going to be in town for the weekend and would like to meet with some of the team. If you're talking about a San Fran to LA flight their really cheap so that shouldn't cost too much. I know it's a pain, but it shows commitment. Just so you're aware, most employers will of course foot the bill to fly you out and get you to and from the airport (might even throw in a lunch). I'm just talking about the "impression" your leaving.

OK, back to the discussion on salaries. You may be one of the dot-com'ers who pulled in major buckeroos over the last few years. Now money's not as easy to come by. Does that mean that companies should hold your previous salary against you? NO! The dot-com era was unique. People put in some monstrous hours working to get their "new" businesses ready to launch.

What you should do is figure out your average salary per hour when you were putting in the big hours. How much did you make for the year? Divide that by about 2080 and that should give you an estimate for your hourly wage assuming your worked something like a 40 hour week (which you probably didn't). That number will sound really high and this is the number your potential employer is toying with in their head.

Instead, figure out the monstrous hours that you actually put in over the course of a year and divide your annual salary by that amount. Now, that hourly number should be significantly lower. OK, we can argue the point as to whether you were working exempt status (no overtime) but everyone has a gut reaction to an hourly salary. Take that new lower figure and multiply that by 2080 and that should give you your annual salary if you worked for a company that had relatively normal work hours (NOTE: normal is such a relative term, but again you can adjust this number to take into account a 50 hour work week, a 60 hour work week, etc.). Obviously, this number will be lower than your take home last year. Use whatever number you want but just try to think of your past salary in this way as a reasonable justification for your salary. There's no reason at all to be apologetic about your past earnings although in my experience this is becoming more common.

I guess what I'm saying is that nobody can reasonably argue that the intense periods of activity a few years back is normal. That's not to say that companies don't still have their peaks and deliverable dates where the pressure is on. Of course that still applies. But I think that things have tempered a bit and become more realistic.

Another factor to consider, is that many boom-and-bust companies really didn't have much to offer except a salary, options, and other enticements to get you to stay. Jobs were everywhere, and the money was flowing, but you could be out of your current job in a moment. Stability clearly wasn't a selling point. You were taking a risk just by joining a young startup.

Think these things through before you go to your next interview. It could become important especially if you're willing to take a lower salary in today's market. I really should point out that there are still specific skill sets where current demand will keep your salary high. If your expertise is in one of those niche areas, well then a change in salary may not even be an issue. ;)

Today's rant is a little off topic but I just had to get this down. I'll say this only once (well, maybe I'll repeat it later but it sounds tougher this way)!

DO NOT send your resumes into a corporate recruiting team 15 times to 15 different jobs!!!!! It's HIGHLY unlikely that you are qualified for all of those jobs given that they range from associate level to senior VP! It's simply not fair to the employer and perhaps of more importance to other people who actually ARE qualified for the job. Stop resume spamming people and maybe you'll get a call back! Whew! Had to get that off of my chest.

OK, it's been quite some time. Since my last rant, I've been thinking a lot about Salary Discrimination. What's that? Well, I've been running into more and more candidates who pretty much beg me to not have to tell their previous salary. You'd think that they wanted to hide this info so they could bargain for the best deal, right? Actually, they don't want me to find out that they made so much over the last few years. The story I'm hearing is that things are going great on phone interviews until the money issue comes up and then things get really quiet.

Why would an employer care? Well, it seems that with today's market being what it is, people are considering positions with lower salaries than they would have last year. This makes employers a little edgy. There's always the thought that a candidate might just be taking a role that is offered now just because they're really hard up and need the cash. As soon as another, presumably higher paying, position is available, they'll hop.

There's some precedence for this. Just look at the heady dot-com days. You can argue that this was just a little tit-for-tat. First the big employers showed little loyalty to their employees by laying them off by the boatload for higher profit margins. Then along came the dot-com boom and it was your chance to stick-it-to-'em. Well, the one thing both sides seem to be forgetting is that the market sways back-and-forth between the two extremes and we better all figure out how to just plain 'ol "get along." :)

I can also tell you, and I'm sure other recruiters will confirm this, that there are people out there who will start off a discussion on salaries like this...

"Well, I made X last year and was running the whole team. This year, with the market being what it is, I'd be willing to take a lower amount and be a team member...

[now here's where the big BUT comes in...]

...BUT I'm sure that within six months you'll be so excited about my work that you'll be giving me the big bucks and I'll be running the team."

There are a few problems with that. For one, unless the current team leader dies there's no way you're moving up that fast! Secondly, any responsible company has predefined budgets for their teams and you're not likely to make a huge salary leap in 6 months simply because you decided that you'd be willing to take a lower paying job in the first place. Again, employers want their people to be comfortable. Really!

Also, making the big bucks while you could was fine, but you also may have learned to live the lifestyle. You have the cars, mortgage, private schools, etc. No responsible manager wants someone starting a new job having to live on macaroni and cheese. Feeling strapped all the time isn't good for morale. Again, we really do want our people to be happy. Really!

That being said, there are very good, justifiable reasons for having the high salaries that existed during the boom days. You shouldn't be ashamed of doing well when the market allowed you to. There are also good, justifiable reasons for taking a lower salary this year. Likewise, you may not even have to consider a lower salary if your particular skill set is still in great demand. Regardless, next time we'll look at this from the candidate's point of view.

OK, here's my second entry so it's time to get to the meat of this blog... finding great jobs for geeks. There are three topics I've been noodling about lately and I'll address these in different entries, Salary Discrimination, Writing a Good Geek Resume, Moving to Where the Work Is.

Let's start with the resume.


Don't listen to any resume "expert" who tells you that you must limit your resume to one page. That's rediculous!


As a tech recruiter, I want to pull a few things from your resume and I want them fast. Make it hard and I'll just move on. Think of it like web pages. If it's a pain to get the information, what do you do? You move on to another site. That takes you about 10 seconds to decide right? Well, it's the same for us.,


The first thing I want to know is your current location. No reason to talk to you if you live a million miles away from the job (unless we can relo and that's harder to justify with the lousy job market). Put this right on the top and not in a stupid Word header or footer!


Two, I want to see what you've been doing with yourself for last 4-5 jobs. I want to see exactly what you've been doing with yourself. Make it easy on me OK? Don't give me a bunch of nebulous, wishy-washy statements about how you contributed to saving your company from impending doom. It might be true, and if it is, tell me how you did it. I want depth, a three dimensional resume. Reread your own resume and ask yourself the depth questions (e.g., How many? How long? What did you use to do this wonderful thing you did?).


A good example is when a sysadmin lists "Architected large-scale web solution." What does that mean? First of all clearly and concisely define "Architected" for me. What factors did you take into account in your design? What type of services were your servers supporting? What kind of security, load, etc. support did you incorporate into your design? Then tell me how large is "large." How many servers? Break the servers down by service (i.e., web servers, database servers, load balancers, clusters, number of datacenters, etc.) In other words, your "large-scale" solution may be an pimple compared to ours. It's also possible that your solution dwarfs ours. If that's true, cool! Impress me.


One more thing. Don't hold back! If you're holding back the details because your think you'll look better, don't. A good technical recruiter is going to slice-and-dice your entire background and history anyway so don't make this a hide-and-seek game. Again, make it easy for us to get a realistic impression of you and your skills. Trust me, we'll love your for it.


Also, clearly indicate for every job how long you were there and if you were a perm or contractor, contract-to-hire, temp-to-perm, etc. It gives us me a better of your work history. Knowing if you did long-term contracts vs. short-term contracts is important. Sometimes I want to know if you have the "stick with it" attitude and can follow up on your work. Yes, that does mean maintenance and sometimes even support! Don't get me wrong, there are perfectly good reasons for bringing someone with highly unique experience to do a shot-gun job. You're worth your weight in gold in those instances. Sometimes, that's just not what the team needs and I want to know that early.


Whew! This was supposed to be my first, short entry. I'll elaborate on a few more resume hints in the next installment.

This is the first of my many ruminations on the current state of technical hiring.

I'm typing my inner most thoughts and distractions on my Handspring Visor with a GoType Pro keyboard. Blogging is truly portable with the wonderful assistance of AvantBlog (thanks Beau for this wonderful addition to my Palm toolbox!). In case this page is being scanned by a search engine, I should also mention that AvantBlog uses the totally cool, free service Avantgo as a gateway to posting these blogs through your Palm device.