
Ask HN: Should we waive technical interviews if candidate contributes? - varunagrawal
If a candidate contributes a code related patch to a company&#x27;s open source project, should that serve as enough justification to the interviewer that the candidate has technical prowess in order to waive a technical interview?<p>This would IMO be a better gauge of technical quality over white-board interviews.
======
mchannon
You should waive technical interviews, full stop.

Most people have zero professional training on how to do them properly. So
don't.

Using the technical interview approach, Einstein wouldn't get a job as a
physicist because he had trouble doing simple math problems. That's not
Einstein's fault. That's your fault.

Use methods of interviewing that are time-honored and aren't cargo cult.
Conversational interviewing comes to mind.

~~~
rahimnathwani
You should waive unit testing, full stop.

Most people have zero professional training on how to do them properly. So
don't.

/s

------
jppope
Whiteboard interviews are as useless as baptizing a rattlesnake... but that
doesn't mean contributed code is relevant indicator of future performance. It
might be ... but as always "it just depends"

~~~
rl3
> _... as useless as baptizing a rattlesnake_

Says someone who clearly doesn't have to worry about the threat of demonic
rattlesnakes.

------
BjoernKW
The 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.

~~~
varunagrawal
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.

------
KZeillmann
This might suffice to see if the candidate is able to write decent code, but
what about their ability to communicate their ideas with other developers,
their approach to tech in general, or how they'd mesh with the team on a
technical level?

~~~
sidlls
Those aren't part of the technical interview, possibly except for the
"approach to tech" item depending on context.

~~~
rahimnathwani
How can "ability to communicate their ideas with other developers" not be part
of the technical interview?

How could a developer get a 'hire' or 'strong hire' rating without
communicating their ideas clearly to the interviewer?

------
bjourne
I 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.

~~~
varunagrawal
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.

------
JamesBarney
Yes, 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.

------
ytNumbers
What if a friend of the candidate is the actual person who contributed the
code patch? You can't be too careful these days.

~~~
mrfusion
Then they’d be excellent management material. Motivating friends to do random,
high quality code patches. Very impressive.

