> We interviewed a candidate ... didn't want to touch things like terminals ... they where looking for more of an architects role I don't know whether you were

> We interviewed a candidate ... didn't want to touch things like terminals ... they where looking for more of an architects role I don't know whether you were actually looking for an architect? There are different types of architects. For example, you have got enterprise architects that indeed will never touch yaml, you have got solution architects who have a more narrow focus, and you have got engineers with a plate of overbearing work and team responsibilities. The latter are better called lead engineer. In my experience, being a good (lead) engineer doesn't make one a good architect, but companies try to make their job posting more sexy by titling it with "architect". One would imho do better by taking lead engineers seriously just in their own right. Architects in general need to be very skilled in abstract reasoning, information processing & conceptual thinking. However, the people hiring for an "architect" often look for a 2x/nx engineer, who is able to code x widgets per hour. That is a stupid mismatch. I would agree however that someone without previous practical experience would be rather unsuitable, especially "below" enterprise architect level.