4 ms·

There's an entirely different reason for using github as a filter. But isn't one of the major reasons we look for a github portfolio, really as an ideological

There's an entirely different reason for using github as a filter. But isn't one of the major reasons we look for a github portfolio, really as an ideological filter for finding cofounders? I wouldn't go so far as calling it communist, but contributing to open-source projects requires a dedication to the 'common good'. If it is communist, it is a great filter for people who would like to own the means of production (equity) rather than getting paid from surplus profits! (salary). I'm not great on communist ideology, but anyway startups are a mix, they're a bit socialist at a very early stage then mature. At any rate, if this is the correct way to view github, then the counterexample we're looking for isn't people who say "I'm a great engineer and I have no github" but - "I am highly interested in working for equity alone (in a pre-revenue context!) as a cofounder, building a project from scratch with no initial reward except a sense of ownership, and I have no github". That rings a lot more hollow than being a well-paid engineer with no github.

gutnor 13y ago
The biggest contributor to open-source are companies like IBM. Calling IBM communist, is well weird. If you remove extremists of each movements, seeing value in common-good has nothing to do with communism or socialism or capitalism. The only filter you apply by looking at github is social. You select individual based on how involved they are in a community. If your company evolve in the same community that can be beneficial. If not, well it is only slightly a bit more relevant than looking at hiring a plumber based on how recognised he is in the car modding community.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  I disagree. If you want to review a candidate's code, GitHub is one of many useful tools to do so. Having code on GitHub does not require one to participate in its social features. If GitHub lets you verify that someone is capable of writing code that you think is of high quality, is that not a useful tool to apply in a wide variety of circumstances?
  - gutnor 13y ago
    The point of the article was looking at influencial people in GitHub, the ones for which an automated resume even make sense. Now indeed, you can also look at the code that even regular people are producing. The problem here is that you filter people that uses GitHub as a code repository, storing learning material (i.e. rubbish), quick hack (i.e. dirty, no tests), ..., or people that use GitHub as a code portfolio with a selection of their best piece of code. But really, whatever works for you. There was the same talk about LinkedIn first, then StackOverflow accounts back in the days and nowadays hardly anybody cares.
    - burntsushi 13y ago
      I was responding to this claim you made: "The only filter you apply by looking at github is social".
burntsushi 13y ago
This is an interesting and weird comment. I'm the exact opposite of a communist or socialist, but I love contributing to open source. And I certainly don't see open source as communist. (I don't see it as opposite to communism either.) I think there is a rather large distinction between "contributing to the common good" and advocating communism, which is a political philosophy. I think whether you want to help others is wholly independent from your political philosophy.
jtbigwoo 13y ago
A fair number of people get paid to make part of their work open source. I know a couple people whose github profiles are entirely populated by projects for their employers.

gutnor 13y ago

The biggest contributor to open-source are companies like IBM. Calling IBM communist, is well weird. If you remove extremists of each movements, seeing value in common-good has nothing to do with communism or socialism or capitalism. The only filter you apply by looking at github is social. You select individual based on how involved they are in a community. If your company evolve in the same community that can be beneficial. If not, well it is only slightly a bit more relevant than looking at hiring a plumber based on how recognised he is in the car modding community.

burntsushi 13y ago
I disagree. If you want to review a candidate's code, GitHub is one of many useful tools to do so. Having code on GitHub does not require one to participate in its social features. If GitHub lets you verify that someone is capable of writing code that you think is of high quality, is that not a useful tool to apply in a wide variety of circumstances?
- gutnor 13y ago
  The point of the article was looking at influencial people in GitHub, the ones for which an automated resume even make sense. Now indeed, you can also look at the code that even regular people are producing. The problem here is that you filter people that uses GitHub as a code repository, storing learning material (i.e. rubbish), quick hack (i.e. dirty, no tests), ..., or people that use GitHub as a code portfolio with a selection of their best piece of code. But really, whatever works for you. There was the same talk about LinkedIn first, then StackOverflow accounts back in the days and nowadays hardly anybody cares.
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    I was responding to this claim you made: "The only filter you apply by looking at github is social".

burntsushi 13y ago

This is an interesting and weird comment. I'm the exact opposite of a communist or socialist, but I love contributing to open source. And I certainly don't see open source as communist. (I don't see it as opposite to communism either.) I think there is a rather large distinction between "contributing to the common good" and advocating communism, which is a political philosophy. I think whether you want to help others is wholly independent from your political philosophy.

jtbigwoo 13y ago

A fair number of people get paid to make part of their work open source. I know a couple people whose github profiles are entirely populated by projects for their employers.