6 ms·

I just can’t get past the fact that he didn’t even deliver on the core deliverable of “ The project is to build a minimal, terminal-inspired email client”. Noth

I just can’t get past the fact that he didn’t even deliver on the core deliverable of “ The project is to build a minimal, terminal-inspired email client”. Nothing about the demo I watched on YouTube looked “terminal-inspired”

pas 1y ago
It's advertised as a backend position, so OP built a backend.
- throwaway314155 1y ago
  And they failed for it, because they didn't follow the instructions. Nit picking about the requirements and being all "well, _technically_" is both a common personality trait among programmers and _THE WRONG WAY TO THINK_ when interacting with humans.
  - pas 1y ago
    Lot of people are very spicy in the comments, but for a mid-level position mind-reading shouldn't be required. Not to mention that the whole problem is that the fucking hiring manager was too slimy to actually go to the technical team and ask them what they think about the proposal, and too lazy to take the time and energy and answer like a normal sentient being, and instead sent this autoresponder-level bullshit reply.
- theamk 1y ago
  a wrong kind of backend though.. The position is "Email Backend Engineer" and the backend OP built was "web backend" (OP outsourced the actual "email backend", that is the thing that stores and sends/receives emails, to a third-party products. Probably not the wisest solution if you are trying to get hired to work on email backends :) )
  - pas 1y ago
    I think rejecting a candidate for almost any reason that those making the decision feel as important is okay, but wasting people's time is not. Just reading the thread is obvious that the requirements were sufficiently vague -- which, again, is not necessarily a problem -- but going about this in a very disrespectful way is not. (And yes, of course, the hiring manager always can say that "oh I did not want to reject them before they sent the finished assignment, because they could have surprised us with their code!" -- which, while technically true, but I think simply showcases the absolute uncaring laziness that we see from many companies.)
    - theamk 1y ago
      Well, you are a hiring manager, and you get an email filled with irrelevant decisions (i.e. the parts which do not affect scoring much), and the only part relevant to assignment text [0] is: > The UI will be kept simple, showing pagination for sent and received emails. In addition to the requirements of the assessment, there will be a login screen ... How would you reply to that? One option is to tell them that the document looks fine, but also add that it does not actually describe the parts they are going to grade on (such as: "which part of aerc/mutt is does author imitate?"). But this is a bad idea, because the likely reaction of candidate is to spend even more time on spec... and the assignment is not about writing specs, the specs are not in the rubric, and you don't want to waste candidate's time on asking for docs you don't care about. Another option is to tell them: "This spec is so bad, I don't think you can possibly pass. Bye-bye!". This is even worse, as it can potentially reject good candidates who are just bad at writing documents - and there are plenty of them. So I think responding: "Looking forward to receiving your submission." is the pretty OK answer. (I suppose the in the non-interview settings, if this was a junior engineer, I'd might also add something like "And don't forget to make the pages you write be terminal-inspired, as the requirements say, see videos of people using [aerc], [mutt] and [himalaya]" - but I can see why this was not said in the interview. After all, testing that the candidate can read and comprehend a tiny requirements doc is a part of the interview) [0] https://archive.md/A95Ju#selection-529.0-545.9 https://archive.md/A95Ju#selection-529.0-545.9
      - pas 1y ago
GoToRO 1y ago
"Email client can either be in the terminal (i.e. a TUI) or a web app"

pas 1y ago

It's advertised as a backend position, so OP built a backend.

throwaway314155 1y ago
And they failed for it, because they didn't follow the instructions. Nit picking about the requirements and being all "well, _technically_" is both a common personality trait among programmers and _THE WRONG WAY TO THINK_ when interacting with humans.
- pas 1y ago
  Lot of people are very spicy in the comments, but for a mid-level position mind-reading shouldn't be required. Not to mention that the whole problem is that the fucking hiring manager was too slimy to actually go to the technical team and ask them what they think about the proposal, and too lazy to take the time and energy and answer like a normal sentient being, and instead sent this autoresponder-level bullshit reply.
theamk 1y ago
a wrong kind of backend though.. The position is "Email Backend Engineer" and the backend OP built was "web backend" (OP outsourced the actual "email backend", that is the thing that stores and sends/receives emails, to a third-party products. Probably not the wisest solution if you are trying to get hired to work on email backends :) )
- pas 1y ago
  I think rejecting a candidate for almost any reason that those making the decision feel as important is okay, but wasting people's time is not. Just reading the thread is obvious that the requirements were sufficiently vague -- which, again, is not necessarily a problem -- but going about this in a very disrespectful way is not. (And yes, of course, the hiring manager always can say that "oh I did not want to reject them before they sent the finished assignment, because they could have surprised us with their code!" -- which, while technically true, but I think simply showcases the absolute uncaring laziness that we see from many companies.)
  - theamk 1y ago
    Well, you are a hiring manager, and you get an email filled with irrelevant decisions (i.e. the parts which do not affect scoring much), and the only part relevant to assignment text [0] is: > The UI will be kept simple, showing pagination for sent and received emails. In addition to the requirements of the assessment, there will be a login screen ... How would you reply to that? One option is to tell them that the document looks fine, but also add that it does not actually describe the parts they are going to grade on (such as: "which part of aerc/mutt is does author imitate?"). But this is a bad idea, because the likely reaction of candidate is to spend even more time on spec... and the assignment is not about writing specs, the specs are not in the rubric, and you don't want to waste candidate's time on asking for docs you don't care about. Another option is to tell them: "This spec is so bad, I don't think you can possibly pass. Bye-bye!". This is even worse, as it can potentially reject good candidates who are just bad at writing documents - and there are plenty of them. So I think responding: "Looking forward to receiving your submission." is the pretty OK answer. (I suppose the in the non-interview settings, if this was a junior engineer, I'd might also add something like "And don't forget to make the pages you write be terminal-inspired, as the requirements say, see videos of people using [aerc], [mutt] and [himalaya]" - but I can see why this was not said in the interview. After all, testing that the candidate can read and comprehend a tiny requirements doc is a part of the interview) [0] https://archive.md/A95Ju#selection-529.0-545.9 https://archive.md/A95Ju#selection-529.0-545.9
    - pas 1y ago

GoToRO 1y ago

"Email client can either be in the terminal (i.e. a TUI) or a web app"