6 ms·

I'm not sure what "mess" you're referring to -- that we have a writing-intensive hiring process? That we get a lot of applicants? That we therefore end up rej

I'm not sure what "mess" you're referring to -- that we have a writing-intensive hiring process? That we get a lot of applicants? That we therefore end up rejecting a bunch of people? That we read application materials thoroughly? That we don't provide specific feedback on individual applicants (even though we explicitly state that/why we don't)? To state clearly what I feel we have said many times: Yes, it's hard to get a job at Oxide. Yes, we get a lot applicants. Yes, we ask a lot of applicants upfront. But the payoff (and the reason it's worth the risk and the work for the right person!) is an extraordinary and uplifting team -- one that I daresay each of us counts as being of unparalleled breadth and depth in our careers.

mrcwinn 3mo ago
I understand that all employees have equal salary pay (apart from sales people who can earn more and are valued higher). Do all have equal equity and voting rights, at least within common stock? And since transparency is a core value and principle, will you commit to sharing your cap table publicly?
- bcantrill 3mo ago
  I appreciate that our approach to compensation leaves some with overwhelming feelings of whataboutery, but no, we (of course?) do not have equal equity: as we have said (several times?) equity broadly compensates for risk -- and risk has gone down over time. (I used to tell people to "value the equity at zero"; I don't say that any longer because it plainly isn't.) In terms of the cap table: that's a bit of an odd request? On the one hand, there are no real secrets hanging out on our cap table -- but on the other, based on your tone, it doesn't feel like the request is terrible earnest? (And, I hasten to add, transparency is a value -- not a principle.[0]) [0] https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0002 https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0002
  - segsehhjehj 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - dijit 3mo ago
      Hey man, You’re not getting across a reasonable point here. Maybe take a step back and think about what you really want to say. Clearly something is landing wrong, but exactly what is not being well communicated.
      - esseph 3mo ago
        It is very interesting to me to read these responses from some of you because I honestly don't see him saying anything at all unreasonable or out of line in any way. But then again, I'm not a PR person, HR, or sales.
        dijit 3mo ago
        Neither am I, and in fact I am considered one of the "harsher" voices in nearly every company I've been a part of. but >"you are a social cancer" when someone is earnestly explaining the tradeoffs they're making is not constructive dialogue.
  - mrcwinn 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - sieabahlpark 3mo ago
      [dead]
    - bcantrill 3mo ago
      Clearly, you find Oxide's approach very upsetting; in the words of Laurie Bream, "look inward."
  - kaashif 3mo ago
    Some earnest, light feedback: to my ears, "kick butt" sounds about the same as one of those euphemistic substitutions for swears like "gosh we darn well try our darndest". It's just very funny to lead with that is all.
    - jcgrillo 3mo ago
      It's a Scott McNealy quote[0]. [0] https://www.information-age.com/mcnealy-and-ellison-usher-in-new-era-for-sun-25201/ https://www.information-age.com/mcnealy-and-ellison-usher-in...
  - grepfru_it 3mo ago
    Hey Bryan A good rule of thumb is to always ask to see the cap table as an early employee. Question them when they don’t. Probably not so much with 0xide at series C, but definitely demand it at preseed and series A. Hope all is good with you bro
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
contingencies 3mo ago
Baby got backplane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X53ZSxkQ3Ho&t=80 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X53ZSxkQ3Ho&t=80
FireBeyond 3mo ago
> Several folks complained about the tremendous amount of homework they had to do after the initial screen, and once submitted, were ghosted. > That we don't provide specific feedback on individual applicants (even though we explicitly state that/why we don't)? Your response is not a response to the OP's claim. The OP didn't claim you didn't provide specific feedback, it was that they were entirely ghosted mid-process. And that others said the same. But even beyond that, your response doesn't align with your own careers page's "Hiring Process": > If candidates aren’t advanced into interviews by the process outlined in [rfd147], an explicit rejection should be sent. The level of oversubscription for Oxide roles means that this rejection will likely be non-specific — which is naturally frustrating for applicants that have put a lot of energy into their materials. Candidates may well respond to a rejection by asking for more specific feedback; to the degree that feedback can be constructive, it should be provided. Which would be in alignment: > Decency > We treat others with dignity, be they colleague, customer, community or competitor. Here you just come off quite defensive, and argue that you at are Oxide are "very clear about" things that you say quite the opposite about on the very directions you tell candidates to read. If what you say is true - and I can absolutely believe it is - fine, update the docs and the site. But don't come here and gaslight people into "I don't understand the problem. We're very clear, we've been very clear, people should not be complaining about this." Source: https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0003 https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0003
- db48x 3mo ago
  > The OP didn't claim you didn't provide specific feedback, it was that they were entirely ghosted mid-process. And that others said the same. Eh, if even a small percentage of those emails end up in a spam folder then there are going to be people who think that they were ghosted. They didn’t ghost me. Alas, they didn’t hire me either.
  - FireBeyond 3mo ago
    Sure. But even then Bryan says people have no right to be upset because they are “quite explicit” that they don’t provide feedback, while a candidate applying for a job reads that the company prides itself on not ghosting anyone and providing whatever possible feedback.
q3k 3mo ago
The particular 'mess' I've encountered was I applied (wrote 11 pages of interview material) on 2024/09/29 and then received a canned 'yeah whoops sorry for taking this long, not interested' on 2025/03/24. That's almost 6 months of delay from submission to first contact. Terrible process. You need to give feedback early if you're not interested in someone, not leave them hanging for nearly half a year.
- zapu 3mo ago
  Hah, oh no, if they (practically) ghosted q3k, then most of us have no chance.
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - steveklabnik 3mo ago
    I left Oxide a long time ago, I don't know about q3k's specific case (though I agree six months is a very long time), but it is just true from the numbers that it is very, very hard to get a job at Oxide. The number of applicants compared to the number of positions is a very intense ratio. When I was there, there were often very tough decisions, where we had one opening, but five or even ten excellent final candidates. The math means that you are inherently turning down some excellent people.
    - q3k 3mo ago
      I don't mind the rejection (I know I'm not _that_ good, I understand there's tons of applications and I'm fine with that), but the wait and lack of clear feedback sucked. The response was particularly unclear - was I rejected outright? Did I slip through the cracks and then the role got filled by someone else? Should I reapply, or am I not a fit for company culture? Or just maybe not a fit for the role? If I reapply, should it be with the same interview packet, or should I rethink it? Like, is it me or is is it you? Even when I applied to Google (a famously 'bad' recruitment experience according to most) I was able to at least regularly talk to a human who would give me feedback from interviews. And when there was a lack of team fit they'd tell me so clearly and help me look for another role. They treated me like a human! Like, I could talk to someone! Oxide just gave me a canned answer without a signature attached and no way to actually talk to anyone. Oh well, in the meantime I've actually found a meaningful job where the recruitment experience didn't feel like I'm just throwing messages in a bottle into the ocean and hoping to get a response.
thraway3837 3mo ago
wow. If I am correct, this is the cofounder and CTO of Oxide. This is a very defensive and agressive response. This explains everything I need to know about your workplace and leadership structure. Hardest pass. No thank you. In case it gets deleted, I've quoted what bcantrill said below. "I'm not sure what "mess" you're referring to -- that we have a writing-intensive hiring process? That we get a lot of applicants? That we therefore end up rejecting a bunch of people? That we read application materials thoroughly? That we don't provide specific feedback on individual applicants (even though we explicitly state that/why we don't)? To state clearly what I feel we have said many times: Yes, it's hard to get a job at Oxide. Yes, we get a lot applicants. Yes, we ask a lot of applicants upfront. But the payoff (and the reason it's worth the risk and the work for the right person!) is an extraordinary and uplifting team -- one that I daresay each of us counts as being of unparalleled breadth and depth in our careers."
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- Kevcmk 3mo ago
  I am not seeing the issue here
  - ithkuil 3mo ago
    Damned if you reply with empty corpspeak, damned if you don't
polack 3mo ago
Brian, you need to step off your high horse. Few people can go around saying that they are the best, and you’re not one of them. It was also embarrassing to listen to the podcast episode where you humiliated that Eastern European guy you had invited. All very off putting and it really tarnish the brand.
- thraway3837 3mo ago
  Holy crap. This just keeps getting worse. Link to podcast? See if you can find a mirror if possible, these guys may actually try to scrub this off the internet once their company realizes they have a lose cannon in their senior team.
  - polack 3mo ago
    It was not THAT bad, but it really feed my impression that there is an institutional god complex at Oxide.
teaearlgraycold 3mo ago
I don't know Brian or anyone at Oxide, but for the record nearly every place I have ever passed an interview (and later enjoyed employment at) has had people complain about the process online. Partly I think that's down to nearly everyone having an imperfect interview process. It's hard to do right and you won't fail as a company because you passed on a good candidate. You optimize for rejecting the people that will cause disaster, because those are the people that could cause you to fail. Some of the saltiness I see online must be sour grapes.
- redwood 3mo ago
  Also even if one were to approach some theoretical perfect interview process there will always be people who feel miffed and complain

mrcwinn 3mo ago

I understand that all employees have equal salary pay (apart from sales people who can earn more and are valued higher). Do all have equal equity and voting rights, at least within common stock? And since transparency is a core value and principle, will you commit to sharing your cap table publicly?

bcantrill 3mo ago
I appreciate that our approach to compensation leaves some with overwhelming feelings of whataboutery, but no, we (of course?) do not have equal equity: as we have said (several times?) equity broadly compensates for risk -- and risk has gone down over time. (I used to tell people to "value the equity at zero"; I don't say that any longer because it plainly isn't.) In terms of the cap table: that's a bit of an odd request? On the one hand, there are no real secrets hanging out on our cap table -- but on the other, based on your tone, it doesn't feel like the request is terrible earnest? (And, I hasten to add, transparency is a value -- not a principle.[0]) [0] https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0002 https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0002
- segsehhjehj 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - dijit 3mo ago
    Hey man, You’re not getting across a reasonable point here. Maybe take a step back and think about what you really want to say. Clearly something is landing wrong, but exactly what is not being well communicated.
    - esseph 3mo ago
      It is very interesting to me to read these responses from some of you because I honestly don't see him saying anything at all unreasonable or out of line in any way. But then again, I'm not a PR person, HR, or sales.
      - dijit 3mo ago
        Neither am I, and in fact I am considered one of the "harsher" voices in nearly every company I've been a part of. but >"you are a social cancer" when someone is earnestly explaining the tradeoffs they're making is not constructive dialogue.
- mrcwinn 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - sieabahlpark 3mo ago
    [dead]
  - bcantrill 3mo ago
    Clearly, you find Oxide's approach very upsetting; in the words of Laurie Bream, "look inward."
- kaashif 3mo ago
  Some earnest, light feedback: to my ears, "kick butt" sounds about the same as one of those euphemistic substitutions for swears like "gosh we darn well try our darndest". It's just very funny to lead with that is all.
  - jcgrillo 3mo ago
    It's a Scott McNealy quote[0]. [0] https://www.information-age.com/mcnealy-and-ellison-usher-in-new-era-for-sun-25201/ https://www.information-age.com/mcnealy-and-ellison-usher-in...
- grepfru_it 3mo ago
  Hey Bryan A good rule of thumb is to always ask to see the cap table as an early employee. Question them when they don’t. Probably not so much with 0xide at series C, but definitely demand it at preseed and series A. Hope all is good with you bro
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

contingencies 3mo ago

Baby got backplane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X53ZSxkQ3Ho&t=80 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X53ZSxkQ3Ho&t=80

FireBeyond 3mo ago

> Several folks complained about the tremendous amount of homework they had to do after the initial screen, and once submitted, were ghosted. > That we don't provide specific feedback on individual applicants (even though we explicitly state that/why we don't)? Your response is not a response to the OP's claim. The OP didn't claim you didn't provide specific feedback, it was that they were entirely ghosted mid-process. And that others said the same. But even beyond that, your response doesn't align with your own careers page's "Hiring Process": > If candidates aren’t advanced into interviews by the process outlined in [rfd147], an explicit rejection should be sent. The level of oversubscription for Oxide roles means that this rejection will likely be non-specific — which is naturally frustrating for applicants that have put a lot of energy into their materials. Candidates may well respond to a rejection by asking for more specific feedback; to the degree that feedback can be constructive, it should be provided. Which would be in alignment: > Decency > We treat others with dignity, be they colleague, customer, community or competitor. Here you just come off quite defensive, and argue that you at are Oxide are "very clear about" things that you say quite the opposite about on the very directions you tell candidates to read. If what you say is true - and I can absolutely believe it is - fine, update the docs and the site. But don't come here and gaslight people into "I don't understand the problem. We're very clear, we've been very clear, people should not be complaining about this." Source: https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0003 https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0003

db48x 3mo ago
> The OP didn't claim you didn't provide specific feedback, it was that they were entirely ghosted mid-process. And that others said the same. Eh, if even a small percentage of those emails end up in a spam folder then there are going to be people who think that they were ghosted. They didn’t ghost me. Alas, they didn’t hire me either.
- FireBeyond 3mo ago
  Sure. But even then Bryan says people have no right to be upset because they are “quite explicit” that they don’t provide feedback, while a candidate applying for a job reads that the company prides itself on not ghosting anyone and providing whatever possible feedback.

q3k 3mo ago

The particular 'mess' I've encountered was I applied (wrote 11 pages of interview material) on 2024/09/29 and then received a canned 'yeah whoops sorry for taking this long, not interested' on 2025/03/24. That's almost 6 months of delay from submission to first contact. Terrible process. You need to give feedback early if you're not interested in someone, not leave them hanging for nearly half a year.

zapu 3mo ago
Hah, oh no, if they (practically) ghosted q3k, then most of us have no chance.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- steveklabnik 3mo ago
  I left Oxide a long time ago, I don't know about q3k's specific case (though I agree six months is a very long time), but it is just true from the numbers that it is very, very hard to get a job at Oxide. The number of applicants compared to the number of positions is a very intense ratio. When I was there, there were often very tough decisions, where we had one opening, but five or even ten excellent final candidates. The math means that you are inherently turning down some excellent people.
  - q3k 3mo ago
    I don't mind the rejection (I know I'm not _that_ good, I understand there's tons of applications and I'm fine with that), but the wait and lack of clear feedback sucked. The response was particularly unclear - was I rejected outright? Did I slip through the cracks and then the role got filled by someone else? Should I reapply, or am I not a fit for company culture? Or just maybe not a fit for the role? If I reapply, should it be with the same interview packet, or should I rethink it? Like, is it me or is is it you? Even when I applied to Google (a famously 'bad' recruitment experience according to most) I was able to at least regularly talk to a human who would give me feedback from interviews. And when there was a lack of team fit they'd tell me so clearly and help me look for another role. They treated me like a human! Like, I could talk to someone! Oxide just gave me a canned answer without a signature attached and no way to actually talk to anyone. Oh well, in the meantime I've actually found a meaningful job where the recruitment experience didn't feel like I'm just throwing messages in a bottle into the ocean and hoping to get a response.

thraway3837 3mo ago

wow. If I am correct, this is the cofounder and CTO of Oxide. This is a very defensive and agressive response. This explains everything I need to know about your workplace and leadership structure. Hardest pass. No thank you. In case it gets deleted, I've quoted what bcantrill said below. "I'm not sure what "mess" you're referring to -- that we have a writing-intensive hiring process? That we get a lot of applicants? That we therefore end up rejecting a bunch of people? That we read application materials thoroughly? That we don't provide specific feedback on individual applicants (even though we explicitly state that/why we don't)? To state clearly what I feel we have said many times: Yes, it's hard to get a job at Oxide. Yes, we get a lot applicants. Yes, we ask a lot of applicants upfront. But the payoff (and the reason it's worth the risk and the work for the right person!) is an extraordinary and uplifting team -- one that I daresay each of us counts as being of unparalleled breadth and depth in our careers."

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
Kevcmk 3mo ago
I am not seeing the issue here
- ithkuil 3mo ago
  Damned if you reply with empty corpspeak, damned if you don't

polack 3mo ago

Brian, you need to step off your high horse. Few people can go around saying that they are the best, and you’re not one of them. It was also embarrassing to listen to the podcast episode where you humiliated that Eastern European guy you had invited. All very off putting and it really tarnish the brand.

thraway3837 3mo ago
Holy crap. This just keeps getting worse. Link to podcast? See if you can find a mirror if possible, these guys may actually try to scrub this off the internet once their company realizes they have a lose cannon in their senior team.
- polack 3mo ago
  It was not THAT bad, but it really feed my impression that there is an institutional god complex at Oxide.

teaearlgraycold 3mo ago

I don't know Brian or anyone at Oxide, but for the record nearly every place I have ever passed an interview (and later enjoyed employment at) has had people complain about the process online. Partly I think that's down to nearly everyone having an imperfect interview process. It's hard to do right and you won't fail as a company because you passed on a good candidate. You optimize for rejecting the people that will cause disaster, because those are the people that could cause you to fail. Some of the saltiness I see online must be sour grapes.

redwood 3mo ago
Also even if one were to approach some theoretical perfect interview process there will always be people who feel miffed and complain