What if a friend of the candidate is the actual person who contributed the code patch? You can't be too careful these days.
Then they’d be excellent management material. Motivating friends to do random, high quality code patches. Very impressive.
Ask HN: Should we waive technical interviews if candidate contributes?
11–16 of 16 posts
Re: Ask HN: Should we waive technical interviews if candidate contributes?
#12The question is if technical interviews of the white-board variety usually have any value at all in determining someone's technical prowess or if they're generally just a huge waste of resources.
Quite likely, there's no one-size-fits-all solution for assessing candidates.
The way I approach this is by looking at the candidate's background and trying to make connections to the product the company or team is working on.
Then I have an open conversation with the candidate about these connecting points and possibly related subjects. It usually becomes obvious quite quickly if the candidate knows what he or she is talking about. It also gives you an idea about how the candidate communicates, which often is more important than technical skill.
Technically, that's still a technical interview but it's much more free-form than the rigid white-board interview format. It's more of a conversation between equals rather than a test setting, where one side is being questioned.
Re: Ask HN: Should we waive technical interviews if candidate contributes?
#13I feel like what you're asking is borderline to a dumb question. Because yes, it is obvious that someone who can contribute a (meaningful) patch to working code is qualified. At least skip the FizzBuzz tests.
Re: Ask HN: Should we waive technical interviews if candidate contributes?
#14I feel like what you're asking is borderline to a dumb question. Because yes, it is obvious that someone who can contribute a (meaningful) patch to working code is qualified. At least skip the FizzBuzz tests.
We don't see this happening for tech jobs, and at the worst, interviewers will still ask programming language specific questions. Plus "meaningful patch" might mean different things to different people.
Re: Ask HN: Should we waive technical interviews if candidate contributes?
#15The question is if technical interviews of the white-board variety usually have any value at all in determining someone's technical prowess or if they're generally just a huge waste of resources. Quite likely, there's no one-size-fits-all solution for assessing candidates. The way I approach this is by looking at the candidate's background and trying to make connections to the product the company or team is working o…
I like this way of doing things. Some people are brilliant and very good at general communication but just don't interview well due to various factors. This sort of free form conversation should put them at ease as well.
Re: Ask HN: Should we waive technical interviews if candidate contributes?
#16Yes, this is a far better measure of ability than any white board test.
Then if you want to measure communication skills etc then just look over some of his commits and get him to explain them to you.