6 ms·

My interview experience with Canonical

46 points by marvinpinto 9y ago

makecheck 9y ago
Do not ever take an action (such as rejecting other offers) based on a verbal/provisional/anything. Only a letter in hand is any good, and even then you should probably respond quickly if you plan to accept.
- ealexhudson 9y ago
  I've never heard of a "provisional offer" in the UK market - this would be highly unusual. I don't know if Canonical is culturally UK, but maybe there was a misunderstanding about the stage of the process they had reached?
  - Spivak 9y ago
    A provisional offer usually comes from the person who would be your direct supervisor who outright states their intent to hire but then has to jump through a bunch of HR hoops. A prudent person would probably be on their guard because they can sometimes fall through but it's rare enough that I wouldn't fault the candidate for assuming they have the job.
  - astura 9y ago
    Im not sure about elsewhere, but in the US, at least in my experience, a "provisional offer" is an offer that's contingent on one or more specific condition, usually something like "pass your background check" or "pass your drug test," or "references check out," or "you prove you are legally entitled to work." These are things you won't usually put a potential hire through unless you've both agreed upon employment and salary.
  - MatthewWilkes 9y ago
    A friend of mine got a provisional offer from a highly funded UK startup which was then rescinded explicitly on grounds of age. Before I could convince him that this wasn't acceptable they folded. I think we'd all be surprised at the shit that companies that enjoy the smell of their own farts pull.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    Provisional offers are common in the UK if the company uses references (which are being used less often nowadays) or requires a DBS check.
guelo 9y ago
Probably a bad professional move for him to write this post and burn those bridges. It's suspicious that he didn't describe the execs interview. Normally when I've had a good technical interview the execs interview feels like just a formality, or it turns into them selling me on the company. The one time I saw a higher up override the technical manager was when the exec had a bias against consultants. Canonical being an open source company I imagine that more wishy-washy "values" criteria are given more weight.
- Cau5tik 9y ago
  Bridge burning is never a good professional move, and the author goes out of his way to be rude about it. I'm not sure what positive effect they thought this would have. Based on this post I can't say I'd want to work with the author either.
  - programmer_dude 9y ago
    I think it is a good thing he wrote this piece. It is better to go into an interview knowing about possible negative outcomes. I wouldn't mind working with people who speak their mind. Actually I prefer it.
- jancsika 9y ago
  > It's suspicious that he didn't describe the execs interview. Where does it say he had to do an interview with the execs after getting the provisional offer? All I read was that "Canonical requires a panel of executives to approve each senior level hire."
- cparedes 9y ago
  There was never an interview where you meet with Canonical execs. There was an interview panel where I met with higher ups and whatnot, but not at the executive level. That was a completely, 100% hidden step in the process depending on where they think you lay in the hierarchy (probably decided after the interview - the job I was interviewing for wasn't originally written for a senior level hire.)
- cparedes 9y ago
rileymat2 9y ago
> instead of getting a stipend for a work laptop you'd ordinarily have to hand in after leaving the company, you instead get an interest-free loan that's spread over the course of 3 months that's used to pay for your equipment and whatever else you need for your remote work space. I am missing why this is better in any way.
- CoolGuySteve 9y ago
  I never understood why company's don't just give you the equipment, to keep, forever. A laptop/monitor/chair/etc is a trivial expense compared to the person's salary and you don't end up with a bunch of random weird ergonomic devices floating around from the ghosts of employees past.
  - outside1234 9y ago
    "to keep, forever" <-- they would need to include this on your W2, versus the current situation where it is depreciated equipment over 3 years or whatever.
    - stock_toaster 9y ago
      Personally, I woud be fine with that. I think they could even call it a "signing bonus". From what I understand, some signing bonuses are even contingent upon your staying for at least a specified period of time, or you have to pay it back.
      - mobilefriendly 9y ago
        You don't understand the tax implications, you'd have to pay income and payroll taxes on the laptop, depending on your marginal rate that could cost you an additional 40% of the cost of the laptop. And the company would pay payroll taxes on it as well. Versus the company buying it as their property and being able to fully deduct it over time.
        9y ago
PopsiclePete 9y ago
I once wrote an email in anger to a bunch of co-workers. My manager at the time, a very decent, reasonable fellow, patiently explained exactly why it's important to breathe and count to 10 before you click "send" and go off saying "fuck this" and "fuck that" - you're burning bridges. This guy should have counted to 10, realized that it's his own stupidity that got him into this mess, and moved on. Instead he wrote some rambling bullshit and blames Canonical for not having a pay-check? Seriously? And this tool was interviewing for a senior position? Looks like Canonical made the right move here.
- astura 9y ago
  In my life I've written many a letter never sent. Sometimes it feels just as good to compose that heartfelt letter telling the other party exactly what you think of them.... then burn that shit rather than dropping it in the mailbox. Sometimes it's best for everyone. This would have been a perfectly journal entry but it is a very, very poor blog post, especially since he wasn't clear exactly what happened. (Apparently Lincoln was a big fan of the unsent letter)
- cparedes 9y ago
  "Tool" here. I don't blame them for not having a paycheck, I blame them for handling this incredibly terribly. If I had known there was even an exec-level review of my application, I would've acted otherwise. I don't burn bridges often, but given the amount of bullshit that exists in the tech industry, I'm okay with calling it out and risk burning bridges than to keep mum and allow shitty practices to continue. Everything was assured - I turned down other offers either due to some bad timing or seemingly worse fit, related to waiting for this particular position to get back to me. Of course, no one should ever turn down other jobs unless you have an official offer letter in hand, but even then, an employer can rescind the offer even if you sign the paperwork.
  - addicted 9y ago
    I think your bolded sentence in the first paragraph sets the wrong tone. The post would be more effective if you let the events speak for themselves.
jonathonf 9y ago
If this is to be taken at face-value I'd view it as "poor show" on Canonical's part. An offer of employment was made and later rescinded. However, while a "provisional" offer might seem unusual, from a UK-perspective it would normally be down to things like eligiblity-to-work, ID checks, and references (a "provisional offer based on satisfactory references" is quite normal). I'm not sure if the author would say, or know, the reason _why_ the offer was rescinded, but, on face-value, it presents Canonical's HR and recruitment process quite poorly. On the other hand, if Canonical requested and could not get references, or references were negative, the offer would quite understandably be withdrawn. From the article, all we know is that Canonical advertised a position, the author was provisionally offered the position, then Canonical withdrew the provisional offer.
- stuaxo 9y ago
  There should always be transparency in this kind of situation, so that - at the very least, the person can address the issue going into the next interview.
- cparedes 9y ago
  They never asked for references.
drharby 9y ago
>Assholes Flavortown, baby
gtf21 9y ago
> never interview at Canonical, never work for them, don't even entertain the idea of seeing yourself getting a paycheck while working on tools that seemingly have zero traction outside of Canonical All this vitriol seems like an over-strong reaction to an executive panel rescinding his offer. Canonical should definitely have been clear about the entire process up-front, but making decisions before you have a full confirmation doesn't seem sensible. When we hire we send out an offer letter after all the interviews are done, but that offer is explicitly still contingent on right-to-work checks and satisfactory references. This is normally a formality but there's always a chance something might go wrong.
- mentat 9y ago
  If you look at his work history on LinkedIn, I can see why there would be an issue. Many jobs held less than a year. That's not a pattern anyone wants to hire.
  - stuaxo 9y ago
    You'd be surprised. I've done a mix of contracts and perm jobs. Had one interview say that, and the next interview it was seen as a plus and was hired.
  - expertentipp 9y ago
    For the employer it’s a business, for employee it’s personal life. Many businesses are simply not worth more than couple of months of the employee’s life.
  - cparedes 9y ago
    Yeah - I'm still looking for that job fit. Takes a while sometimes.
    - Twirrim 9y ago
      Problem is, if I'm looking at hiring you I'm not sure if I'm going to get my money's worth. Hiring is not cheap, plus there's the ramp up time, and the impact on other people's performance while you're ramping up. If your work history shows you're not likely to stick around for a couple of years, that will count against you in any consideration. Some times you need to make decisions about how much crap you'll put up with, so that your job history makes you more marketable. Your resume / work history is one of the first things a recruiter or hiring manager will see about you. It has to speak for you on what kind of employee you are, and you have to assume they're going to take it the worst way.
rboyd 9y ago
I think the guy was just priced out. Companies ought to be more upfront about their salary bands. It's pretty unreasonable to have candidates jump through a phone screen, complete a homework assignment, then travel to come meet in person for the whiteboard pain session before they know if a company can even afford them. I see more companies getting this right lately but we have a way to go. Otherwise, it can be a huge waste of everyone's time. In this case it sounds like whoever negotiated didn't even have authority to make a deal, which is a pretty big flub on Canonical's part. The other possibility is that one of the interviewers didn't get feedback in before the negotiation. That would still be a process fail. A good developer/SRE should basically be able to justify her expense and essentially write her own check, splitting the value capture with the host company. Things are way off and asymmetric in the current hiring practice. Thanks for posting. It's understandable to be upset here. More companies with bad interview processes should be outed so that they can improve and the rest of us don't have to discover them on our own.
- stuaxo 9y ago
  They should have mentioned this earlier though. It seems pretty unprofessionally handled, and return he's being about as professional. It's better to rise above things, but sometimes it's more evening to give what you get.
- mulmen 9y ago
  The article mentions salary negotiations and immediate interview feedback. It sounds like the executives decided not to hire for whatever reason (maybe salary).
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"A good developer/SRE should basically be able to justify her expense and essentially write her own check, splitting the value capture with the host company. Things are way off and asymmetric in the current hiring practice." I was curious what you meant by "splitting the value capture with the host company." Similarly I would be interested in where you see asymmetry in the hiring process.
  - 9y ago
asdjasldkjkljd 9y ago
Canonical probably feels better about this decision after this blog post. Not a great experience, but I don't think it's worth dragging a company publicly over.
blaisio 9y ago
If you need a job, why would you reject other offers before accepting an offer from someone? That really doesn't make sense...
- justin66 9y ago
  You can get into a situation where you have multiple offers you need to decide upon at the same time. It's not entirely ethical to say "yes" to all of them, although one lesson here is that you have not really said yes to an offer until you sign.
lafar6502 9y ago
Why would anyone associate his name forever with a failure or problems? Internet will not forget and all kinds of people will search and find it and have some fucking stupid ideas. Im missing the time when job was a job and nobody gave a fuck about what you did five years ago or who are your friends and relatives.

46 points by marvinpinto 9y ago

Do not ever take an action (such as rejecting other offers) based on a verbal/provisional/anything. Only a letter in hand is any good, and even then you should probably respond quickly if you plan to accept.

ealexhudson 9y ago
I've never heard of a "provisional offer" in the UK market - this would be highly unusual. I don't know if Canonical is culturally UK, but maybe there was a misunderstanding about the stage of the process they had reached?
- Spivak 9y ago
  A provisional offer usually comes from the person who would be your direct supervisor who outright states their intent to hire but then has to jump through a bunch of HR hoops. A prudent person would probably be on their guard because they can sometimes fall through but it's rare enough that I wouldn't fault the candidate for assuming they have the job.
- astura 9y ago
  Im not sure about elsewhere, but in the US, at least in my experience, a "provisional offer" is an offer that's contingent on one or more specific condition, usually something like "pass your background check" or "pass your drug test," or "references check out," or "you prove you are legally entitled to work." These are things you won't usually put a potential hire through unless you've both agreed upon employment and salary.
- MatthewWilkes 9y ago
  A friend of mine got a provisional offer from a highly funded UK startup which was then rescinded explicitly on grounds of age. Before I could convince him that this wasn't acceptable they folded. I think we'd all be surprised at the shit that companies that enjoy the smell of their own farts pull.
- DanBC 9y ago
  Provisional offers are common in the UK if the company uses references (which are being used less often nowadays) or requires a DBS check.

guelo 9y ago

Probably a bad professional move for him to write this post and burn those bridges. It's suspicious that he didn't describe the execs interview. Normally when I've had a good technical interview the execs interview feels like just a formality, or it turns into them selling me on the company. The one time I saw a higher up override the technical manager was when the exec had a bias against consultants. Canonical being an open source company I imagine that more wishy-washy "values" criteria are given more weight.

Cau5tik 9y ago
Bridge burning is never a good professional move, and the author goes out of his way to be rude about it. I'm not sure what positive effect they thought this would have. Based on this post I can't say I'd want to work with the author either.
- programmer_dude 9y ago
  I think it is a good thing he wrote this piece. It is better to go into an interview knowing about possible negative outcomes. I wouldn't mind working with people who speak their mind. Actually I prefer it.
jancsika 9y ago
> It's suspicious that he didn't describe the execs interview. Where does it say he had to do an interview with the execs after getting the provisional offer? All I read was that "Canonical requires a panel of executives to approve each senior level hire."
cparedes 9y ago
There was never an interview where you meet with Canonical execs. There was an interview panel where I met with higher ups and whatnot, but not at the executive level. That was a completely, 100% hidden step in the process depending on where they think you lay in the hierarchy (probably decided after the interview - the job I was interviewing for wasn't originally written for a senior level hire.)
cparedes 9y ago

rileymat2 9y ago

> instead of getting a stipend for a work laptop you'd ordinarily have to hand in after leaving the company, you instead get an interest-free loan that's spread over the course of 3 months that's used to pay for your equipment and whatever else you need for your remote work space. I am missing why this is better in any way.

CoolGuySteve 9y ago
I never understood why company's don't just give you the equipment, to keep, forever. A laptop/monitor/chair/etc is a trivial expense compared to the person's salary and you don't end up with a bunch of random weird ergonomic devices floating around from the ghosts of employees past.
- outside1234 9y ago
  "to keep, forever" <-- they would need to include this on your W2, versus the current situation where it is depreciated equipment over 3 years or whatever.
  - stock_toaster 9y ago
    Personally, I woud be fine with that. I think they could even call it a "signing bonus". From what I understand, some signing bonuses are even contingent upon your staying for at least a specified period of time, or you have to pay it back.
    - mobilefriendly 9y ago
      You don't understand the tax implications, you'd have to pay income and payroll taxes on the laptop, depending on your marginal rate that could cost you an additional 40% of the cost of the laptop. And the company would pay payroll taxes on it as well. Versus the company buying it as their property and being able to fully deduct it over time.
      - 9y ago

PopsiclePete 9y ago

I once wrote an email in anger to a bunch of co-workers. My manager at the time, a very decent, reasonable fellow, patiently explained exactly why it's important to breathe and count to 10 before you click "send" and go off saying "fuck this" and "fuck that" - you're burning bridges. This guy should have counted to 10, realized that it's his own stupidity that got him into this mess, and moved on. Instead he wrote some rambling bullshit and blames Canonical for not having a pay-check? Seriously? And this tool was interviewing for a senior position? Looks like Canonical made the right move here.

astura 9y ago
In my life I've written many a letter never sent. Sometimes it feels just as good to compose that heartfelt letter telling the other party exactly what you think of them.... then burn that shit rather than dropping it in the mailbox. Sometimes it's best for everyone. This would have been a perfectly journal entry but it is a very, very poor blog post, especially since he wasn't clear exactly what happened. (Apparently Lincoln was a big fan of the unsent letter)
cparedes 9y ago
"Tool" here. I don't blame them for not having a paycheck, I blame them for handling this incredibly terribly. If I had known there was even an exec-level review of my application, I would've acted otherwise. I don't burn bridges often, but given the amount of bullshit that exists in the tech industry, I'm okay with calling it out and risk burning bridges than to keep mum and allow shitty practices to continue. Everything was assured - I turned down other offers either due to some bad timing or seemingly worse fit, related to waiting for this particular position to get back to me. Of course, no one should ever turn down other jobs unless you have an official offer letter in hand, but even then, an employer can rescind the offer even if you sign the paperwork.
- addicted 9y ago
  I think your bolded sentence in the first paragraph sets the wrong tone. The post would be more effective if you let the events speak for themselves.

jonathonf 9y ago

If this is to be taken at face-value I'd view it as "poor show" on Canonical's part. An offer of employment was made and later rescinded. However, while a "provisional" offer might seem unusual, from a UK-perspective it would normally be down to things like eligiblity-to-work, ID checks, and references (a "provisional offer based on satisfactory references" is quite normal). I'm not sure if the author would say, or know, the reason _why_ the offer was rescinded, but, on face-value, it presents Canonical's HR and recruitment process quite poorly. On the other hand, if Canonical requested and could not get references, or references were negative, the offer would quite understandably be withdrawn. From the article, all we know is that Canonical advertised a position, the author was provisionally offered the position, then Canonical withdrew the provisional offer.

stuaxo 9y ago
There should always be transparency in this kind of situation, so that - at the very least, the person can address the issue going into the next interview.
cparedes 9y ago
They never asked for references.

drharby 9y ago

>Assholes Flavortown, baby

gtf21 9y ago

> never interview at Canonical, never work for them, don't even entertain the idea of seeing yourself getting a paycheck while working on tools that seemingly have zero traction outside of Canonical All this vitriol seems like an over-strong reaction to an executive panel rescinding his offer. Canonical should definitely have been clear about the entire process up-front, but making decisions before you have a full confirmation doesn't seem sensible. When we hire we send out an offer letter after all the interviews are done, but that offer is explicitly still contingent on right-to-work checks and satisfactory references. This is normally a formality but there's always a chance something might go wrong.

mentat 9y ago
If you look at his work history on LinkedIn, I can see why there would be an issue. Many jobs held less than a year. That's not a pattern anyone wants to hire.
- stuaxo 9y ago
  You'd be surprised. I've done a mix of contracts and perm jobs. Had one interview say that, and the next interview it was seen as a plus and was hired.
- expertentipp 9y ago
  For the employer it’s a business, for employee it’s personal life. Many businesses are simply not worth more than couple of months of the employee’s life.
- cparedes 9y ago
  Yeah - I'm still looking for that job fit. Takes a while sometimes.
  - Twirrim 9y ago
    Problem is, if I'm looking at hiring you I'm not sure if I'm going to get my money's worth. Hiring is not cheap, plus there's the ramp up time, and the impact on other people's performance while you're ramping up. If your work history shows you're not likely to stick around for a couple of years, that will count against you in any consideration. Some times you need to make decisions about how much crap you'll put up with, so that your job history makes you more marketable. Your resume / work history is one of the first things a recruiter or hiring manager will see about you. It has to speak for you on what kind of employee you are, and you have to assume they're going to take it the worst way.

rboyd 9y ago

I think the guy was just priced out. Companies ought to be more upfront about their salary bands. It's pretty unreasonable to have candidates jump through a phone screen, complete a homework assignment, then travel to come meet in person for the whiteboard pain session before they know if a company can even afford them. I see more companies getting this right lately but we have a way to go. Otherwise, it can be a huge waste of everyone's time. In this case it sounds like whoever negotiated didn't even have authority to make a deal, which is a pretty big flub on Canonical's part. The other possibility is that one of the interviewers didn't get feedback in before the negotiation. That would still be a process fail. A good developer/SRE should basically be able to justify her expense and essentially write her own check, splitting the value capture with the host company. Things are way off and asymmetric in the current hiring practice. Thanks for posting. It's understandable to be upset here. More companies with bad interview processes should be outed so that they can improve and the rest of us don't have to discover them on our own.

stuaxo 9y ago
They should have mentioned this earlier though. It seems pretty unprofessionally handled, and return he's being about as professional. It's better to rise above things, but sometimes it's more evening to give what you get.
mulmen 9y ago
The article mentions salary negotiations and immediate interview feedback. It sounds like the executives decided not to hire for whatever reason (maybe salary).
bogomipz 9y ago
>"A good developer/SRE should basically be able to justify her expense and essentially write her own check, splitting the value capture with the host company. Things are way off and asymmetric in the current hiring practice." I was curious what you meant by "splitting the value capture with the host company." Similarly I would be interested in where you see asymmetry in the hiring process.
- 9y ago

asdjasldkjkljd 9y ago

Canonical probably feels better about this decision after this blog post. Not a great experience, but I don't think it's worth dragging a company publicly over.

blaisio 9y ago

If you need a job, why would you reject other offers before accepting an offer from someone? That really doesn't make sense...

justin66 9y ago
You can get into a situation where you have multiple offers you need to decide upon at the same time. It's not entirely ethical to say "yes" to all of them, although one lesson here is that you have not really said yes to an offer until you sign.

lafar6502 9y ago

Why would anyone associate his name forever with a failure or problems? Internet will not forget and all kinds of people will search and find it and have some fucking stupid ideas. Im missing the time when job was a job and nobody gave a fuck about what you did five years ago or who are your friends and relatives.