3 ms·

Much like the value of the US dollar, what you're saying is only real if enough people choose to believe it. Buying into and supporting this behavior is just d

Much like the value of the US dollar, what you're saying is only real if enough people choose to believe it. Buying into and supporting this behavior is just digging an increasingly deep hole. If you don't want github commits (and an agreement to the github terms of use) to be a mandatory part of all developers lives and CVs, then simply continue being an excellent developer without making github commits that you don't want to make. We're in an important stage of github adoption at the moment. Some recruiters think it's a critical signaling mechanism. If we buy into that, they will seem to be correct, and the companies they recruit for will allow them to continue with their methodology. Soon, they will become correct because all career-oriented developers will feel compelled to work on github based open source projects to the exclusion of other open source projects, even if they don't actually give a shit about the projects they are working on. However, if the companies they recruit for see high quality developers going to the competition because their recruiters are dismissing people out of hand for not being on github, those companies will eventually tell their recruiters to pull their fingers out and do some proper legwork. The correct approach is to starve out this behavior while the cost of doing so is relatively low, not buy into it.

CharlesW 10y ago
> The correct approach is to starve out this behavior while the cost of doing so is relatively low... The cost is pretty high to bobsam, who didn't have a chance to interview for his dream job. Not "playing the game" only works if all good developers stop using GitHub, no?
- Sir_Substance 10y ago
  >The cost is pretty high to bobsam, who didn't have a chance to interview for his dream job. As I said to him in my directly reply to his post, acquiring an interview for ones dream job is a task best not left to others. In relation to our specific discussion, ultimately one developers loss of their dream job is not a huge cost. We are looking down the barrel of a future where github can pick and choose who is employable and who is not, and therefore who makes key technical decisions at major vendors and who does not, by banning github accounts for political reasons. That has knock on effects for things like key standards decisions, and that's when the costs of refusing to conform start mounting. I basically don't trust companies with that kind of power.

CharlesW 10y ago

> The correct approach is to starve out this behavior while the cost of doing so is relatively low... The cost is pretty high to bobsam, who didn't have a chance to interview for his dream job. Not "playing the game" only works if all good developers stop using GitHub, no?

Sir_Substance 10y ago
>The cost is pretty high to bobsam, who didn't have a chance to interview for his dream job. As I said to him in my directly reply to his post, acquiring an interview for ones dream job is a task best not left to others. In relation to our specific discussion, ultimately one developers loss of their dream job is not a huge cost. We are looking down the barrel of a future where github can pick and choose who is employable and who is not, and therefore who makes key technical decisions at major vendors and who does not, by banning github accounts for political reasons. That has knock on effects for things like key standards decisions, and that's when the costs of refusing to conform start mounting. I basically don't trust companies with that kind of power.