6 ms·
> if I'm hiring someone to solve problems, I'd like to see how they solve a problem; and certainly your github is a record of you solving some problems. Is thi
by devrob 4y ago
> if I'm hiring someone to solve problems, I'd like to see how they solve a problem; and certainly your github is a record of you solving some problems.
Is this to do with your comfort level in understanding their approach?
> need to invest considerable time understanding the codebase you are working on and the problems your changes are solving before I can even begin to properly think about your changesets
Completely fair.
> during We Just Got New Budget So Let's Recruit All The People month.
Lol
> One might then go look at github repositories as well as scheduling longer meet-and-greets for the most interesting people to make the final selection.
I see, so using the activity and portfolio _after_ the fact as a means to gauge additional signal once the baseline has been met
> Moreover, many publishers don't accept direct applications, or only accept them during specific, brief, time periods - by requiring the author to get an agent to agree to represent them, they are effectively outsourcing that initial screening step)
Interesting, thanks for sharing!
- tsukikage 4y ago> Is this to do with your comfort level in understanding their approach? No, this is to do with knowing that they can, when asked to solve a problem, actually solve the problem. Just like Spolsky's fizzbuzz test. A surprising proportion cannot. As part of a live interview, it also tests a bunch of other things that help me work out whether we would be happy collaborating on things: what's this person like to explain things to? What are they like at explaining what they're thinking or why they're doing what they're doing? Are they the sort of person that actually listens, or the sort that pattern-matches and ends up answering a different question to the one I asked? And so on. But a quick show-me-you-can-problem-solve-at-all, laugh and move on is the main goal.