It's a problematic category. You want a temperament and style match from someone who isn't a bullshitter. I've probably been at this too long and likely presum

It's a problematic category. You want a temperament and style match from someone who isn't a bullshitter. I've probably been at this too long and likely presume too much competency but I've found the skill continuum model to not have much utility in team formation. People tend to be generally competent in a way that's independent of how long they've been coding. Fred Brooks claims 2 years is essentially the Pareto 80/20 crux point here and I believe that agrees with other skills based practices. Martial arts progression, for instance, usually has some test to demonstrate general competence around 2 years or so. Many trade schools have about a 2 year program. If the bulb is dim after 2 years the trajectory is likely not good for improvement and more importantly for large project delegation. I've been doing this for over 20 years, been running teams for over 15, there's been a lot of people I put hope into. They were probably mistakes to give work to. It sounds like predestination and like I'm being a bastard. Truth is I don't really follow the 2 year advice but it's pretty clearly the reality. I just can't be a calculating brute like that. It's way too sociopathic for me. So now that I've Nicoli Machiavelli'd myself: Make sure they aren't liars, stupid or arrogant and look strictly at their velocity of adaptation.