Food for thought: I care about open source and I'd say I'm the kind of engineer canonical would benefit from hiring (not to flatter myself too much) but at this

Food for thought: I care about open source and I'd say I'm the kind of engineer canonical would benefit from hiring (not to flatter myself too much) but at this point in my career I no longer look for work. People try to poach me and usually offer to skip interview requirements. Good engineers are never "looking" for work since the work finds them. Increasing the bar of application just means filtering out top candidates. I'm not even the best SWE in the world, just in a very special niche (which Ubuntu IoT serves poorly). Engineers who are better than me have it way easier than I do. It's exponentially easier to job hop at every skill percentile. > We ask them to move any plausible candidate to written interview, and then we generally have the written interview reviewed twice by two separate people, in an anonymized fashion so the reviewer can only assess what's there, with no bias from resume. The SATs essay portion is known for giving horribly biased signals. My assumption is this selects for essay writers, not technical design excellence. There's a lot of great stuff I've seen come out of canonical (MaaS, etc) and a lot of horribly designed legacy tech that no one enjoys using (juju). It seems like getting someone in the pipeline that can sort out a clear modern infrastructure vision would really help canonical and the broader ecosystem at large but I think it won't be happening largely due to hiring practices.