[AusNOG] Off Topic - Brisbane recruitment recommendations

[Cameron Murray]

And to think all I was looking for was recruiter suggestions.
On 14 May 2016 6:13 pm, "Ben Buxton" <bb.ausnog at bb.cactii.net> wrote:

>
> Given the statements made in this thread, ranging from mildly upsetting to
> somewhat infuriating, I cannot resist.
>
> First, automation:
>
> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 2:59 PM Chad Kelly <chad at cpkws.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> In terms of automation I've been using a lot more of it in recent years,
>> but you still need to manually check things as sometimes stuff goes wrong.
>>
>
> Then your "automation" is not automation.
>
> You need to close the loop, otherwise you're just scripting. Scripting !=
> automation (it's really just beginner scale).
>
> Much "automation" today is a bit like the web in the late 90's, or a lot
> of SDN "solutions" - lots of buzzwords and claims of solving world hunger,
> but there's an awful lot of hacks put together that just address a small
> part of the overall picture.
> Then when it all goes titsup people whinge about how bad an idea it was
> and it never was going to work anyway.
>
> Back when the dotcom bubble popped in ~2000, this is exactly what happened
> - we entered the dark ages of the web for a while. Until properly designed
> companies/products emerged.
>
> Close the loop, people.
>
> Tools like GTMetrics have come in handy as well for checking things like
>> the loading times of websites as website speed has become increasingly
>> important.
>>
>
> "Tools" (power or otherwise) have no place in automated infrastructure
> except during those (hopefully rare) times when something really does go
> amiss.
> Think of the electricity grid - electricians have tools like multimeters
> and the like, but the grid uses fully integrated sensors.
>
> Next, specialist vs generalist:
>
> "Specialists" have one place - contract roles. You want a monkey to push
> the right buttons on your AWS console, etc, then this is the place for
> them. As soon as your work deviates from this, they're outta there. Or
> sticking around whinging about change.
>
> Permanent roles need generalists. I don't want to rehash much, but
> technology and your infrastructure will change over time (and if not, look
> up "Kodak", or "Novell", or...) - You need someone who will understand the
> principles and happily change to the new dashboard with latest shiny
> buttons that deep enough down do the same things. Not someone who will
> requiring having a "crucial conversation" with about dealing poorly with
> change.
>
> Given a choice between an engineer who can explain how to use a vendor's X
> and one who can't, but can explain how/why a generic X might work
> internally, I'd much rather take the latter.
>
> And then we come to pay...
>
> If you're finding no candidates for a 100k role asking networking,
> "cloud", automation and the like - the problem is not lack of candidates,
> it's that no one wants to accept a dismal rate of pay, particularly in a
> capital.
> You'll probably get a "conf t" engineer at that rate, but not someone who
> can close the loop and tie all your infrastructure together.
> If you have engineers now who have these skills and they're topping out at
> 100k, then you've done a great sell on the job and/or they're just
> misinformed on the true rate out there - it's a great disservice to them.
>
> Network engineers are going the way of the car assembly line worker. The
> old jobs are going away, and most of the workers wielding spanners will be
> made redundant. But some adapt and shift to designing the robots on the
> line. Those few who take the latter path command higher salaries, and
> rightly so.
>
> BB
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20160514/a4fe1f6e/attachment.html>