3 ms·

I think it's the opposite. Reducing the candidate to a pull request means that gender, race, etc. become completely irrelevant, as it should be. It also means y

I think it's the opposite. Reducing the candidate to a pull request means that gender, race, etc. become completely irrelevant, as it should be. It also means you can assess many more candidate and don't need to sift based on CVs. It's the most inclusive option, with the trade-off that it makes the candidates feel worse and may mean you lose some of the most sought after candidate who have many other options. All of the attributes you mention are subjective and will inevitably lead to bias influencing the process.

dolni 5y ago
Have you ever had to work with a toxic person before? Those subjective attributes have a very real impact on the workplace. It takes only ONE toxic person to sink morale for an entire team. Not filtering out toxic people turns your "most inclusive" into "least inclusive" pretty damn fast because suddenly nobody wants to work at your company anymore.
- 6486396927 5y ago
  Personally, I haven't (I hope that doesn't mean I'm the toxic person). I think those people are rare enough that they can be filtered out at the very end of the process when there is already objective evidence that the candidate is competent. In many workplaces, I think they may even be best filtered out in a paied trial period with some kind of commitment to hire them unless there is a problem. That way the decision can also be made by the people who will work most closely with the candidate. I'm against the idea of testing for cultural fit because I think that leads to less diversity (including less diversity of thought and opinion) which I believe is harmful for teams. I think we work best together with people who are different from us, as long as we are still nice and respectful to each other.
  - dolni 5y ago
    > Personally, I haven't (I hope that doesn't mean I'm the toxic person). I wonder if that's because there are interviewing processes in place that weed these people out. Possibly even ones that have been standard for decades or longer? > I think those people are rare enough that they can be filtered out at the very end of the process when there is already objective evidence that the candidate is competent. This sounds like a real good way to open yourself up to legal liability for exactly the type of discrimination you are worried about. Even if there isn't any discrimination. > I think they may even be best filtered out in a paied trial period with some kind of commitment to hire them unless there is a problem. That way the decision can also be made by the people who will work most closely with the candidate. Suppose you hire a candidate who benefits from the interview process you describe (maybe the "deferred culture fit"?) You seem to mostly be concerned with non-white people, so let's assume they're that. In 2022, who wants to put themselves out there and accuse a non-white person of creating problems in a progressive workplace? Nobody, that's who. > I'm against the idea of testing for cultural fit because I think that leads to less diversity (including less diversity of thought and opinion) which I believe is harmful for teams. I think we work best together with people who are different from us, as long as we are still nice and respectful to each other. I'm against the idea of assuming that anybody who isn't a "straight, white, Christian male" is going to be discriminated against at every turn during the hiring process. ESPECIALLY not in Silicon Valley or NYC. Somehow everybody in these coastal cities is highly aware of and sensitive to ism/phobia, and still very ist/phobe.
geoffmanning 5y ago
Totally agreed. Especially when you're as popular of an org as github, assessing the technical level in a completely indiscriminate process can very easily reduce the pool of candidates that need to be assessed by the actual team that the candidate would be working with. I love people, but i hate interviewing people, and would rather risk losing one that MAY have been good if we started out more human than risk wasting my time interviewing completely unqualified candidates. Until i started reading comments it didn't even occur to me what they are doing at GH for interviewing could be seen as a bad thing. It's all about economics though, and results may vary. Make it easier or harder to hire based on how hard it is for you to fill the role.

dolni 5y ago

Have you ever had to work with a toxic person before? Those subjective attributes have a very real impact on the workplace. It takes only ONE toxic person to sink morale for an entire team. Not filtering out toxic people turns your "most inclusive" into "least inclusive" pretty damn fast because suddenly nobody wants to work at your company anymore.

6486396927 5y ago
Personally, I haven't (I hope that doesn't mean I'm the toxic person). I think those people are rare enough that they can be filtered out at the very end of the process when there is already objective evidence that the candidate is competent. In many workplaces, I think they may even be best filtered out in a paied trial period with some kind of commitment to hire them unless there is a problem. That way the decision can also be made by the people who will work most closely with the candidate. I'm against the idea of testing for cultural fit because I think that leads to less diversity (including less diversity of thought and opinion) which I believe is harmful for teams. I think we work best together with people who are different from us, as long as we are still nice and respectful to each other.
- dolni 5y ago
  > Personally, I haven't (I hope that doesn't mean I'm the toxic person). I wonder if that's because there are interviewing processes in place that weed these people out. Possibly even ones that have been standard for decades or longer? > I think those people are rare enough that they can be filtered out at the very end of the process when there is already objective evidence that the candidate is competent. This sounds like a real good way to open yourself up to legal liability for exactly the type of discrimination you are worried about. Even if there isn't any discrimination. > I think they may even be best filtered out in a paied trial period with some kind of commitment to hire them unless there is a problem. That way the decision can also be made by the people who will work most closely with the candidate. Suppose you hire a candidate who benefits from the interview process you describe (maybe the "deferred culture fit"?) You seem to mostly be concerned with non-white people, so let's assume they're that. In 2022, who wants to put themselves out there and accuse a non-white person of creating problems in a progressive workplace? Nobody, that's who. > I'm against the idea of testing for cultural fit because I think that leads to less diversity (including less diversity of thought and opinion) which I believe is harmful for teams. I think we work best together with people who are different from us, as long as we are still nice and respectful to each other. I'm against the idea of assuming that anybody who isn't a "straight, white, Christian male" is going to be discriminated against at every turn during the hiring process. ESPECIALLY not in Silicon Valley or NYC. Somehow everybody in these coastal cities is highly aware of and sensitive to ism/phobia, and still very ist/phobe.

geoffmanning 5y ago

Totally agreed. Especially when you're as popular of an org as github, assessing the technical level in a completely indiscriminate process can very easily reduce the pool of candidates that need to be assessed by the actual team that the candidate would be working with. I love people, but i hate interviewing people, and would rather risk losing one that MAY have been good if we started out more human than risk wasting my time interviewing completely unqualified candidates. Until i started reading comments it didn't even occur to me what they are doing at GH for interviewing could be seen as a bad thing. It's all about economics though, and results may vary. Make it easier or harder to hire based on how hard it is for you to fill the role.