[iigs]

Something that has thrown me off here: The position very clearly reads as a senior System Administrator / Engineer, with some project management and lead experience. But the title is Director of Infrastructure. Speaking from my experience, a director is a manager of managers.

Is this req really a director role? If so, where are the criteria for the leadership and managerial components? The listing goes into quite a lot of detail about the technical side on things that would end up being optional when deep-diving with the right candidate.

If not, and it's actually a "director of the machines that compose the infrastructure", IMO the education bar is too high: I've never worked at Google, but I don't know anyone with a masters degree that gets Nagios alerts.

Lastly, as an outsider, I see "Customer up-time and data integrity is the most important thing in our company and we need someone who has the experience, depth and skills to lead this area of our company.", but the listing does not speak to the candidate's responsibilities with regard to the development / architecture of the software itself. A senior technical contributor or a manager with this charter will spend no small part of their time in design and code reviews. Frankly, in a lot of shops this position has to argue with Dev to keep them from doing things that seem clever but can't be operationalized, whether due to an unforseen technical restriction, or because the new idea will have a lot of corner / edge cases that will make administration of the application very error-prone.

Had I not moved across the country in the last year, I'd definitely consider throwing my hat in the ring... UT is on the short list of places I'd move next round, too. Good luck and please post a follow-up!