

On Hiring Developers - light_of_tron
https://github.com/rziehl/from_the_terminal/blob/master/posts/005_on_hiring_developers.md

======
lbarrow
Reading these comments, you'd think that everyone on GitHub was only there to
beef up his or her resume.

Personally, I've made far more open source contributions at my current
(awesome) job than I ever did while on the job market. I use GitHub because it
makes coding more fun, and because I get a huge thrill every time someone
tells me they used one of my projects.

I also don't understand the OP's hostility to the open source movement. If you
don't want to share your code, then don't share it! That's totally fine. But
I'm very conscious of the fact that almost all the tools I use every day --
Linux, tmux, vim, Ruby, Python, etc, not to mention hundreds of libraries and
plugins -- were all developed by people in the open source community. Often
these people were working for free or for far below-market wages. Whether or
not OP likes the OSS movement, modern software development is built on open
source tools. Personally, I feel an obligation to try to give something back,
even if it's something as small as a REST API wrapper.

~~~
TheCowboy
I think you're misconstruing what the author has said, as he does not appear
to have "hostility to the open source movement", as he has several open
sourced projects on his github.

Did he express discontent with a specific type of advocate? Yes. But he
explained why, so it should be something you could understand by reading what
he expressed.

He basically shares the same view as you: if you don't want to share your
code, then it should be totally fine. There are people who do not agree with
this, and this is where he draws a distinction.

~~~
lbarrow
I agree with the OP's statement that if you didn't contribute to the code (and
you didn't pay for it, etc), you shouldn't have a say in whether or not the
software is open-sourced.

However, I think that unless the programmer has a good reason not to open
source something, they should default to releasing it. I have a couple reasons
for this.

One, it's impossible to predict what other programmers will or will not find
useful. I have lots of code on GitHub that is not in any sense production
ready. I don't care -- maybe someone will find it helpful.

Two, as I said in my previous comment, whether we want to admit it or not,
we're all using and benefiting from open source software all the time. GitHub
-- the site we're arguing over -- would never have been possible without Git.
I feel indebted to the people who came before me and made all this possible,
and I don't understand people who react to the subtle pressures to contribute
with hostility.

The person at the bottom of this comment list said "I have about 6-7 repos in
GitHub...all private. I will never give that out in a link. I don't mind you
looking at it in front of me, but I'm not giving anyone access to it." I just
totally don't understand this attitude. Code isn't money. I'm not diminishing
you by reading your code. And, as the last 30 years of blazing success in open
source software has shown, the benefits of the open-source ecosystem are far
from abstract. They're the foundation of everything we do.

~~~
jaredsohn
>I just totally don't understand this attitude. Code isn't money. I'm not
diminishing you by reading your code.

I think the argument goes:

Then why is any code proprietary? If I'm interviewing at a company, I should
be able to see that company's code prior to working there.

I also think a general issue is that practices such as this and employment
agreements where the company owns any work you do off hours make it harder for
people to jump from being employees to working for themselves (both in mindset
and in practical ways).

------
jjm
Personally I hear "someday it will turn into a project" all the time. More
times than not it never does.

Nonetheless,

I'm actually ok if someone doesn't have an extensive github (or any for that
matter) on an interview, because I will spend the time and talk with them. I
totally understand however that more or less many firms try to filter out some
of the mass piles of resumes by using github. But most people aren't like me
who want to dig in and _work_ with `you`.

Having said that I very much still like to see a github link. Here is why (and
they are biased toward synergy in a coop manner, which is how I culturally
work; you may be different):

\- You spent the time to do something you thought was cool (dedication) \- You
did the above regardless of how it looked which amongst many things to me
means you have thick skin and are willing to learn (it's a two way street mind
you). \- you've learned to communicate with other developers => _on their
terms_ \- you are not living in a cave and open source doesn't come to you
from only one foss org or your one fav info site. \- you are willing to dive
into code (forking) and making the changes necessary even if it means doing it
yourself \- good ole adding to the knowledge of society (you just don't do it
for the money, you have more than one dimension which drives you)

At least these are my opinions and I hope that at least you might be able to
see one take of many on why some might want to see a github link.

Btw, If anyone else feels the same way, feel free to ping me! Always nice to
meet other devs that share some of my views!

------
pytrin
Yes, a GitHub profile is not perfect. It's way better than nothing - you get
to see the developer's coding style, commenting approach and overall code
organization. You say it's not your best work? then put something you're proud
of on there before you send your resume. If you don't have one project that
you think is representative of your current skill, you have to understand that
is problematic for potential employers. Don't want to share it on GitHub?
that's fine, send code examples instead of a GitHub link. But you can't hire a
developer without reviewing some of his/her code first.

Personally, I find a Stack Overflow profile to be the best indicator of a
developers skill, if he has a somewhat active profile (over 2-3k points).
Being able to explain technical solutions, I think, is the best way to see if
someone is both capable and can work in a team

Regarding resumes - another touchy matter. When I freelanced I haven't sent a
resume as such as I had a portfolio site, but now that I'm on the other side
of the table, going over resumes - most of them are completely terrible. Some
people are completely clueless on what to put on a resume and others try to
game it - putting stuff like "raised x metric by y% on project z" \- giving me
zero clue to what they actually did there. It's very rare I can get an actual
glimpse to what the person was doing at his previous work. That's why you'll
need to tell them your story when you interview... it's too easy to assume the
interviewer was just lazy going over your resume because you think you
"nailed" it, but in truth your resume probably sucks as an indicator of your
actual experience and ability.

~~~
CmonDev
I have seen more than one great developer with SO score < 1000\. Some people
like to code rather than browsing SO.

~~~
robziehl2
Exactly, StackOverflow scores and even upvotes on Hacker News or Reddit is a
neat metric, but in the same sense that commits pushed or lines of code
written are. They hold some value but they are by no means determine quality
or the value of a person's contributions.

------
zaidf
At least when recruiting offshore, github has been a great filter. People who
have github usually end up sharing a bunch of characteristics: they enjoy
coding, they know more api integrations, they are continuously improving.

I'll add the general caveat that it obviously doesn't apply to every GitHub
member but to many. And that is just fine when you have a huge pool of
candidates and you need a decent filter for the upstream.

------
kenjackson
The fundamental problem with Github profiles is that they are easily gamed.
Once it becomes common practice, everyone will have a Github account with lots
of code -- and I suspect a lot they didn't write.

As much as Fizzbuzz (or equivalents) are despised, I think it is still
probably a more useful first-level filters. But not much more.

~~~
jaggederest
The problem with that, is that the depth of github is pretty hard to fake.
Sure, you can have repos with code in them, but the time of day you commit,
what your commits look like, how you work, is well documented.

~~~
tmarthal
I think that is the author's point though: he has a lots of private repos on
bitbucket that he doesn't want to share. The work history and depth of his
code and such is not publicized.

Note also that this is the same for private repos hosted on github. When you
are logged in, you can see the activity and commits of yourself (and your
teammates) in all of the public+private repos that you have access to, but
your public profile only shows public commits. This is by design.

Here is my example image, when I was doing a bunch of work at the start of the
year in some private repos:
[http://imgur.com/4Tr3LQz](http://imgur.com/4Tr3LQz) The top is my public
activity and the bottom one is my public+private activity. So if you're used
to working out of private repos, then nothing is publicly documented and your
actual github profile is not very 'deep'.

~~~
jaggederest
My point was, you can't just fake it because development history looks very
different than 'copy and pasted code in' history.

All of that is true, but my point is that you can't just gin up fake
repositories to look good on a resume.

~~~
otakucode
You've just given me an idea for a project.

------
TheCowboy
I didn't read this as the author opposing any use of github in hiring. I read
it as a warning to keep companies from over-emphasizing something that has
flaws and can be gamed.

People should think about why exactly they are requiring applicants have a
github and make sure they aren't getting lazy about who they let through their
hiring filters and who they exclude. It can be especially problematic when you
have less technically savvy people involved with hiring process.

Anyone reading HN over the years can probably agree that there have been many
bad ideas that have caught on over the years, such as throwing gotcha
brainteasers at applicants. There are also good ideas that have been
misapplied.

~~~
robziehl2
You sir understood my point of view perfectly. I am not opposed to Github or
any tool for that matter, only the misuse of that tool.

------
mafro
If I'm hiring, I want to see some code. I will need time to browse and read a
candidate's code - which is where Github comes in. Also GH gives us their
comments, pull requests & community interactions, which as others have said is
invaluable.

Github, Bitbucket, Google code, Sourceforge (even Stackoverflow!) - it doesn't
really matter where. It just needs to be public.

The OP's comments about Stallman and "Free software fanatics" are way off the
mark; technical hiring staff just want to see your code. Fizz Buzz be damned!
The code cannot lie!

And if your precious projects are too secret and awesome to be seen, then I
very much doubt I'll hire :)

~~~
tillk
This is basically what I wanted to write.

In addition, I'm not a huge fan of linkedin either. There are no guarantees to
it. One is that most of what's on there is hard to check and linkedin
endorsements are just unreal to start with.

I know people who just endorse each other for random things. I have
endorsements from people who I have never worked with for technologies I have
never worked with.

So in the end — Github or similar wins. Allows me to see their code (and
contributions), and that's what matters. For the rest (compatibility on a
social level), there are interviews and probation.

------
yareally
Occasionally, I put some code on Github that I consider to be more useful when
open than closed. Other times, I create a small project just to share useful
programming information along with a few coding examples that someone can
clone if they wish.

There's a lot of code I could put up, but I don't consider it to be as useful
to anyone else in the current form that it is in (tailored more for specific
projects with dependencies that may not be useful to everyone). Other times,
certain clients I work for may not like it because it's code I also wrote for
them with the understanding it was proprietary for their own use (websites).
Sometimes I may also write code for other developers or (indirectly) for their
employer and posting it without their consent would make things complicated.

~~~
robziehl2
This is one topic I didn't touch on that I would have liked to but my post
would have been even longer and it's already a fairly long read. I have
another post planned that addresses this. Over the last year or so I gave a
lot to employers and stopped coding things I enjoyed coding for fun. My Github
profile probably makes it seem that I don't work hard because of this. For
some weird reason though, I have worked on some open source projects on Github
yet it doesn't say I contributed to them but you'll find my commits in the
history on master.

------
leeny
What companies actually require people to have a GitHub and LinkedIn to apply?
I've been doing recruiting for about a year and a half, and I've never seen
this be a hard and fast prerequisite.

I guess I could see a situation where the HR machine makes you fill out some
stupid form when you apply to a company (in the same way that this HR machine
makes you upload your resume in a certain format), but I'd be very surprised
if those rules and requirements come from hiring managers.

It makes sense to want 1) a concise way to see where you've been working, what
you've been doing, and what you write like (presumably this is the LinkedIn
portion) and 2) code samples, but it doesn't make sense to require that this
info comes to you in a specific medium.

------
robziehl
Actual author here. Wrote this post last night to express my thoughts on
hiring trends I've noticed but mostly to thank a friend of mine, went to bed,
woke up to a bunch of tweets and one of my other friends said my post was on
Hacker News. I have read everyone's comments and will try to answer as many of
them as possible. Thanks for all the feedback everyone, no matter how positive
or negative. It's interesting reading all of your perspectives. This made my
day!

------
mmorett
I have about 6-7 repos in GitHub...all private. I will never give that out in
a link. I don't mind you looking at it in front of me, but I'm not giving
anyone access to it. And since all that code is sitting on my laptop, it's
easier to let me plug my laptop to your widescreen and let's talk code.

~~~
robziehl
For my first developer position, I actually went into the interview with my
own laptop and showed the two developers some of my projects written in
DarkBasic. They could see the code if they wanted to but I haven't released
that code anywhere. The demos were very visual which was a great hook in an
interview, I highly recommend that people take their closed source projects to
interviews just to demonstrate what they are capable of.

------
seivan
Github - definitely

LinkedIn - never. Circle jerking recommendations and filling your profile up
with buzzwords.

------
dotmanish
Regarding LinkedIn, I am seeing selective-career-history-wiping happening more
everyday: [http://mobocube.com/post/5312332640/did-your-prospective-
hir...](http://mobocube.com/post/5312332640/did-your-prospective-hires-wipe-
their-job-history)

~~~
robziehl
Interesting, I don't think I would ever tamper with my employment history. If
I got asked why I am not at a company anymore I would be honest.

------
chanux
Are there free software armies forcing people to put everything in GPL? Is
Stallman something like Hitler? From first few paragraphs I thought he's
trying to draw that picture.

~~~
robziehl
Not saying Stallman is like Hitler but I honestly find his views such as
"everything should be free (as in speech)" very hypocritical. At a conference
I attended he also stated "artists and musicians should not expect money for
their work" which I find is again very arrogant. Those pursuits also require
effort and those people can determine how much they value what they create. I
still think Stallman has provided a ton of value to the community, I just
disagree with some of his views. He is still a good person.

~~~
chanux
You started it as "On hiring developers" and quickly went on to a discussion
about Stallman's views. Also from what I've understood you are not just
criticizing Stallman's "request" to give back to the community but whole idea
of sharing code.

You are free to criticize anyone or anything but the Stallman part really did
look like going off on a tangent.

It's really easy to be an ass on the internet but I'm not attacking you or
anything (Like one commenter probably thought I am). Just pointing out what I
noticed.

~~~
robziehl
No worries, no offence taken at all. I welcome all constructive criticism,
more so than positive feedback so thanks!

I know it was a tangent from the initial impression readers got from the title
but it served as an analogy that people can blindly misuse beliefs just like
they can blindly misuse tools. I am not a fan of name dropping and in that
given example I admit I could have avoided mentioning Stallman looking back at
the post and generalized it to free software advocates who try force their
beliefs on others. Also want to add that I do not think all free software
advocates force their beliefs on other developers.

Criticism appreciated, like I said, no offence taken, I did not think you were
attacking me.

~~~
belorn
Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something
genuinely new to say about them (see comment guidelines). Discussing Stallman
and his opinion regarding culture is just treading the same old ground that
has been done before.

~~~
robziehl
As mentioned already in this thread, in my initial comment on this thread in
fact, I had no idea this post was even going to end up on HackerNews. I write
independently without Hacker News in mind. I write for myself. Why would I
have read the comment guidelines on Hacker News before writing a blog post
that I had no intention of putting up on Hacker News in the first place?

@chanux asked a question with regards to my blog post and I answered it with
my justified opinion. It was hardly a mindless flamewar, in fact both of us
ended up agreeing with each other as you can see by the comments and this
tweet if you want further proof:
[https://twitter.com/chanux/status/366211657241862145](https://twitter.com/chanux/status/366211657241862145).
I was not going to ignore a user who had a question about my blog post.

I appreciate the Hacker News community's feedback and contributions but I do
not feel that in this specific example I created an unhealthy discussion by
mentioning Stallman. I have a lot of respect for his work as already stated
and I accepted @chanux's constructive criticism wholeheartedly.

------
CmonDev
"It seems all developer positions these days require the following:

1) A link to your Github account 2) A link to your LinkedIn profile"

1) No 2) No

~~~
CmonDev
"I know why companies have bought into the idea of Github profiles." \- is it
some sort of SF-cisco thing? It's not common in UK/Europe at all.

~~~
lmm
It's getting more so. Last time I was looking for a job (UK) a recruiter not
only mentioned my github, but asked me to pass on another job offer to someone
he'd noticed I was collaborating with.

~~~
robziehl
Oh wow, that's pretty interesting. Was the recruiter from a small company just
trying to aggressively go after candidates or were they legitimately
interested in you project? Not to undermine your work at all but it's the
first time I have heard of an experience like this. Congrats!

~~~
lmm
Big recruitment agency. I think he'd heard the name of that specific guy
rather than caring about what we'd actually been working on.

------
datalus
Pushing utility code and nice succinct tools would be a good use of GitHub if
you're afraid of people stealing your precious million dollar ideas.

~~~
robziehl
I fully support this. If it's not your secret sauce then why not give it to
the community? The common rebuttal I hear for this is "but we have to then
maintain it". Granted, maintenance is time consuming but even if you do not do
anything after open sourcing it, someone could still fork it and tailor it to
suit their needs. I don't open source something if I am on the fence about
whether what I have coded is a tool or a potential product. I also don't open
source something if it's really untidy, I try to do a bit for the community
before putting it out there like making sure it runs on Heroku for example (if
it's a web app let's say) and that it is somewhat readable. Not saying my
current work on my Github is perfect but I am always learning.

