3 ms·

> Because open-source is good at cutting through the bullshit, it also makes it an equalizer. That's one heck of a premise.

ahartmetz 8y ago
You mean open source doesn't cut through the bullshit? It totally does. People can put anything on their resume and sometimes bullshit their way through questions trying to figure out whether they've actually done these things. If all else fails, they can claim trade secrets. Open source contributions can't be faked (except by real name collision), and in any case, there is much more detail available than a few lines or bullet points in a resume.
- aitrean 8y ago
  Open source contributions do not cover even scratch the surface of depth needed to be a software developer. Oh, you resolved that issue in a related repo? That's awesome. Now, for our repo we need you to design an entire system effectively, work well with our other developers, and meet whatever deadlines we prescribe. Of course, if you're someone that accomplishes all of that in the open source community, then your open source work definitely 'cuts through the bullshit'. But the people who meet those criteria are a small subset of even the active open source community. In general, someone's 50 line commit to an open source repo does not tell me much more than them knowing the technology, and being able to complete tasks within a time period of undefined length.
- KirinDave 8y ago
  > People can put anything on their resume and sometimes bullshit their way through questions trying to figure out whether they've actually done these things. If all else fails, they can claim trade secrets. They can perform similar tactics on github: like mirroring an obscure but technically in-depth project without attribution, paying someone to write code and then committing it in your name (I've seen this done!), or making sure to get lots of extra commit density by doing one feature or bugfix after successfully landing a series of reformatting PRs. An applicant planning to fake their way past you is genuinely hard to catch unless your process is tuned for it. The idea that there is a one-size-fits all interview process and that process is as simple as, "Check their github" is lazy to the point of malpractice. It's a goofy premise, and it's playing right into the hand of people who want to abuse you. And this is just addressing the problematic nature of modern tooling for positive signals. Given the pervasive nature of harassment culture in the open source world, you should ALWAYS excuse the absence of open source work. It cannot be a requirement because the open source world can often become extremely hostile and/or political.

ahartmetz 8y ago

You mean open source doesn't cut through the bullshit? It totally does. People can put anything on their resume and sometimes bullshit their way through questions trying to figure out whether they've actually done these things. If all else fails, they can claim trade secrets. Open source contributions can't be faked (except by real name collision), and in any case, there is much more detail available than a few lines or bullet points in a resume.

aitrean 8y ago
Open source contributions do not cover even scratch the surface of depth needed to be a software developer. Oh, you resolved that issue in a related repo? That's awesome. Now, for our repo we need you to design an entire system effectively, work well with our other developers, and meet whatever deadlines we prescribe. Of course, if you're someone that accomplishes all of that in the open source community, then your open source work definitely 'cuts through the bullshit'. But the people who meet those criteria are a small subset of even the active open source community. In general, someone's 50 line commit to an open source repo does not tell me much more than them knowing the technology, and being able to complete tasks within a time period of undefined length.
KirinDave 8y ago
> People can put anything on their resume and sometimes bullshit their way through questions trying to figure out whether they've actually done these things. If all else fails, they can claim trade secrets. They can perform similar tactics on github: like mirroring an obscure but technically in-depth project without attribution, paying someone to write code and then committing it in your name (I've seen this done!), or making sure to get lots of extra commit density by doing one feature or bugfix after successfully landing a series of reformatting PRs. An applicant planning to fake their way past you is genuinely hard to catch unless your process is tuned for it. The idea that there is a one-size-fits all interview process and that process is as simple as, "Check their github" is lazy to the point of malpractice. It's a goofy premise, and it's playing right into the hand of people who want to abuse you. And this is just addressing the problematic nature of modern tooling for positive signals. Given the pervasive nature of harassment culture in the open source world, you should ALWAYS excuse the absence of open source work. It cannot be a requirement because the open source world can often become extremely hostile and/or political.