3 ms·

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.)