I think you can (and should) use your own judgement in how much detail you want to provide. It's the same with a normal interview question: on any question you

I think you can (and should) use your own judgement in how much detail you want to provide. It's the same with a normal interview question: on any question you have the choice to give a short concise answer or go in to great detail. For some of these questions I would provide a fairly short answer, on others a much more expansive one. > So far Canonical has only done the "6 second resume test", and then asks the candidate to spend an unbounded amount of time answering these questions I don't know who gets this assignment: maybe they're very selective about it, or they shotgun it to loads of people. The intro text leads me to believe that it's not shotgunned, but hard to be sure. Most intro calls I've had were 100% a complete waste of time for both of the participants by the way, where they just read what's on the website and job posting ("I can read thank you"), and you just repeat what's on your CV ("surely you can read too?"), after which you're typically given some technical assignment or a second (actually useful) interview. > 5. Heavily biased toward native English speakers. I have worked with people who can clearly communicate their thoughts but make English grammar mistakes. The worst part is they bill this as an attempt at avoiding bias. English is the language in which Canonical communicates, and selecting for English proficiency makes sense, just as selecting for proficiency in $technology makes sense. Does this advantage native English speakers? Sure, but that can't really be helped I'm afraid. I've worked with non-native coworkers (as a non-native speaker myself, I should add) that were a pain to work with because half the time they wrote some documentation there were so many odd grammar mistakes that it was hard to read, and in some cases very unclear. So the bias is skill-based.