This is a bad idea. Even if "additive", giving significant weight to OSS work has a systemic effect of filtering for candidates with the free time, prior expert

This is a bad idea. Even if "additive", giving significant weight to OSS work has a systemic effect of filtering for candidates with the free time, prior expertise, and/or liberty to do OSS work. In turn, those filters penalize: candidates trying to break into the field from other fields; candidates without a lot of free time outside of their existing work; candidates with more than full-time commitments (e.g. a lot of candidates from diverse backgrounds who are combining pre-existing FT+ employment with school to try to break into programming); entry-level candidates who might be able to code a TODO app from a quickstart, but aren't experienced enough to make substantial contributions to larger OSS projects; people whose prior employers didn't allow contributions (as another commenter pointed out); people whose programming experience is niche such that OSS contribution opportunities are rare. Like, whiteboard interviews and leetcode grinding are not good filters, no argument there. And OSS is good and we should encourage more contributions in general. But using OSS/hobby contributions as an interview filter is just as bad as leetcode, in that it inequitably narrows the field of candidates and further compounds the hiring diversity problems in the US tech industry.