No. Of course it makes little sense to apply to old jobs, but one of the goals here is to demonstrate that there _are_ actually paid jobs in FOSS. We keep old job listings around on purpose, also because it helps to find interesting organizations which you can then get in touch with.

On the other hand, if the number of jobs in recent time has to be padded with job openings in ancient history, is there really a substainable number of paid jobs in FOSS?

How does this matter? What do you mean by "sustainable"? One job is a job. Two jobs is two jobs.

Sustainable as in "I can make a career of this" or "if this particular project wanes, I can always hop over to one of the many other projects."

If you pad your listings, people will assume you need to because there _aren't_ many such jobs. Moreso over time as the ratio of filled listings to active recruitment grows -- if all visitors ever see are jobs that no longer accept applications, they will not come away with a positive outlook on the field.

Again: We am not "padding" anything. The site exists since 2012, and we keep old job listings around, as an archive and to help find interesting potential employers that may have jobs apart of what is listed. There's an open ticket about "fading them out" a little to make it even more obvious. There's plenty of recent jobs listed, so your point about "only ever seeing jobs that no longer accept applications" is moot. Also, subscribe to the RSS feed (or Twitter/Facebook), and "all you will ever see will be fresh, open positions".

It's like arguing that a news site should delete yesterday's news instead of keeping an archive, because "you're only interested in today".

As for your "sustainability" and "career building", I disagree there too, but that's for a different conversation.

> There's an open ticket about "fading them out" a little to make it even more obvious.

As someone who recently was job hunting and come across another site with this problem: absolutely do this. You get the bonus of instantly showing the user which jobs are current, so they don't notice only after wasting time and then jump to the assumption the site is dead. You show users that you take the up-to-dateness of the data seriously. And lastly you get to keep the archive around, which I agree with you is a good thing to do.

> There's plenty of recent jobs listed, so your point about "only ever seeing jobs that no longer accept applications" is moot.

Not for me there's not. I'm in the UK and it's all 2 years old.

(Good idea tho, hope it continues well!)

Plenty of recent jobs are open to remote workers, which includes UK.