8 ms·

>Do startups really look at github contributions as the ultimate measure of one's tech chops or are looking for people who go that extra bit and make time in th

>Do startups really look at github contributions as the ultimate measure of one's tech chops or are looking for people who go that extra bit and make time in their schedules for contributing back to the community? When I was hiring, yes. There is no easier and simpler way to evaluate someone before bringing them in for an interview than checking their verifiable OSS contributions. It's low friction. Doesn't mean we didn't consider others, but for obvious reasons people who actually could prove they had done work went to the head of the line. It's just how it is.

username223 13y ago
"people who actually could prove they had done work went to the head of the line." You mean "people who proved they would work for free," right? FWIW, I'm not interested in working for your company, but of the code I wrote which has made it to Github, most has been uploaded by people other than me.
- Blahah 13y ago
  OSS doesn't mean writing for free. A very large chunk of the code on Github was writing on paid time.
  - username223 13y ago
    It seems like mostly a place where people store config files, mirror code, and dump half-assed work in progress. But would "I wrote this code, and someone posted it on a website" really make someone better than "I wrote this code?"
    - pdpi 13y ago
      Not better, just easier to verify.
- icelancer 13y ago
  No, I don't. I have written quite a bit of stuff that I was paid to write that made it to GitHub, FWIW.
- pnathan 13y ago
  I don't work for free: my libre software work is under the GPL in one form or another. If it's a library, it's LGPL-derived; if it's product, it's AGPL3. Either I get money, or you get to publish your changes to my code so we all benefit. Pick one. =)
prawks 13y ago
> people who actually could prove they had done work went to the head of the line Isn't that usually sorted out by the resume piece of the puzzle? By listing placed an applicant has actually worked? I know it's not your full hiring procedure you've outlined here, but I just see that kind of filtering as very naive. You'd have to make a huge number of assumptions to go from someone's OSS contributions to anything about their work ethic.
- tokenrove 13y ago
  Unfortunately it's easy to make claims on one's resume that are hard to refute. Yes, you worked there, but what did you actually do? What did the code you wrote look like? Every writer who advocates FizzBuzz or something related has specifically mentioned these are candidates with resumes that got them to the interview stage, but who couldn't actually write code. Looking at open source code or a portfolio is an extension of that, since one doesn't really have time in an interview to do anything more complex than FizzBuzz.
- icelancer 13y ago
  >Isn't that usually sorted out by the resume piece of the puzzle? By listing placed an applicant has actually worked? You clearly haven't done a lot of hiring if you think this is a good filter. People lie.
smackfu 13y ago
Wouldn't it be easier to just say you prefer people who work on OSS as part of the job listing, if that's what your hiring practices end up doing?
- icelancer 13y ago
  Yes. We disclaimed this. Honestly this should be obvious. There is a lot of friction in hiring; the candidates who help reduce that friction will benefit from it.
  - username223 13y ago
    "There is a lot of friction in hiring; the candidates who help reduce that friction will benefit from it." Translation: "Hiring people takes my time. People who save me time will make my job easier, so I'm more likely to hire them." I think I have your hiring process more or less figured out, though I'd never want to work there.
    - icelancer 13y ago
      > "Hiring people takes my time. People who save me time will make my job easier, so I'm more likely to hire them." Uh, yes. That is trivially true. Do you think you stumbled upon some genius snarky comment? Given two options with zero tradeoff in quality, I will choose the easier path. Internal studies also showed that employees who contributed to OSS were more productive, more loyal, and created better value. It doesn't really matter if you'd want to work for us or not, so keep that zinger in your back pocket. (Considering I don't even work in that field anymore and you'd likely be unqualified anyway.)

username223 13y ago

"people who actually could prove they had done work went to the head of the line." You mean "people who proved they would work for free," right? FWIW, I'm not interested in working for your company, but of the code I wrote which has made it to Github, most has been uploaded by people other than me.

Blahah 13y ago
OSS doesn't mean writing for free. A very large chunk of the code on Github was writing on paid time.
- username223 13y ago
  It seems like mostly a place where people store config files, mirror code, and dump half-assed work in progress. But would "I wrote this code, and someone posted it on a website" really make someone better than "I wrote this code?"
  - pdpi 13y ago
    Not better, just easier to verify.
icelancer 13y ago
No, I don't. I have written quite a bit of stuff that I was paid to write that made it to GitHub, FWIW.
pnathan 13y ago
I don't work for free: my libre software work is under the GPL in one form or another. If it's a library, it's LGPL-derived; if it's product, it's AGPL3. Either I get money, or you get to publish your changes to my code so we all benefit. Pick one. =)

prawks 13y ago

> people who actually could prove they had done work went to the head of the line Isn't that usually sorted out by the resume piece of the puzzle? By listing placed an applicant has actually worked? I know it's not your full hiring procedure you've outlined here, but I just see that kind of filtering as very naive. You'd have to make a huge number of assumptions to go from someone's OSS contributions to anything about their work ethic.

tokenrove 13y ago
Unfortunately it's easy to make claims on one's resume that are hard to refute. Yes, you worked there, but what did you actually do? What did the code you wrote look like? Every writer who advocates FizzBuzz or something related has specifically mentioned these are candidates with resumes that got them to the interview stage, but who couldn't actually write code. Looking at open source code or a portfolio is an extension of that, since one doesn't really have time in an interview to do anything more complex than FizzBuzz.
icelancer 13y ago
>Isn't that usually sorted out by the resume piece of the puzzle? By listing placed an applicant has actually worked? You clearly haven't done a lot of hiring if you think this is a good filter. People lie.

smackfu 13y ago

Wouldn't it be easier to just say you prefer people who work on OSS as part of the job listing, if that's what your hiring practices end up doing?

icelancer 13y ago
Yes. We disclaimed this. Honestly this should be obvious. There is a lot of friction in hiring; the candidates who help reduce that friction will benefit from it.
- username223 13y ago
  "There is a lot of friction in hiring; the candidates who help reduce that friction will benefit from it." Translation: "Hiring people takes my time. People who save me time will make my job easier, so I'm more likely to hire them." I think I have your hiring process more or less figured out, though I'd never want to work there.
  - icelancer 13y ago
    > "Hiring people takes my time. People who save me time will make my job easier, so I'm more likely to hire them." Uh, yes. That is trivially true. Do you think you stumbled upon some genius snarky comment? Given two options with zero tradeoff in quality, I will choose the easier path. Internal studies also showed that employees who contributed to OSS were more productive, more loyal, and created better value. It doesn't really matter if you'd want to work for us or not, so keep that zinger in your back pocket. (Considering I don't even work in that field anymore and you'd likely be unqualified anyway.)