Naming is important because it immediately communicates the role of the entity, but it’s only wording after all. In order to propose appropriate naming, we need to understand its function. The matter complicates a little bit when we speak about humans. In heavily repetitive and standardized environments, job titles are often connected with responsibilities. For example, a truck driver is responsible for:
And stating requirements in such a way is perfectly adequate and sufficient. Moreover, in order to be a truck driver, you need to pass an exam for a driving license in a special category. Such a standard adds additional prefilter to our recruitment funnel. Probably we can say that if someone is capable of fulfilling those responsibilities, we can say with 99% certainty that he is suitable for that job.
So let’s conduct a quick thought experiment. We change the domain a little bit. Now we want to describe the responsibilities of a rally driver. So probably the main activity is the same - driving a car. The difference would be just COSMETIC:
But after all, you can say it’s just driving, isn’t it? Even the time constraint and purpose are the same, the truck driver needs to deliver freight as soon as possible, and the rally driver needs to deliver his and his pilot in one piece to the finish line - as soon as possible.
So bear with me and that metaphor for while longer. Imagine that the Appunite is the WRC Subaru team. We have 5 great drivers, but we want to scale our operations, and “the management” made a decision - we should hire another 5. People team along with the rally delivery team write down a job offer with requirements and list responsibilities: