Does individual defection even matter? The purpose of this isn't to put pressure on job seekers, it's to put pressure on employers. The whole idea of "policing" the members seems strange to me.
If you're the type of job seeker who has no objection to leetcode, you wouldn't join. And if you're the type of employer who refuses to do anything else, this would be the last place you'd look for hiring.
The goal is to publicly show employers how many "refuseniks" there are. The situation right now is that refusal only happens privately and anecdotally.
You're right - individual defection doesn't matter. This is optional. The whole idea of "policing" the members seems strange to me and I agree doesn't need to be anywhere near this.
"If you're the type of job seeker who has no objection to leetcode, you wouldn't join. And if you're the type of employer who refuses to do anything else, this would be the last place you'd look for hiring."
This is very well said and exactly what I'm hoping for.
"The goal is to publicly show employers how many "refuseniks" there are. The situation right now is that refusal only happens privately and anecdotally."
This is exactly the goal and what I'm hoping to improve.
OP said the objective was to create a critical mass of people refusing so companies would have to adapt. That's what wouldn't work.
If it's just a niche job board then that's not an issue, but it also seems like one of those things that should have been done already, probably has been, and isn't popular for a reason.
There is already a large number of people who hate audition-style interviews. They don't want to defect.
A public group actually makes it easier for people to avoid defecting. It's very difficult for a job candidate to talk to employers about this when you're just some lone weirdo with idiosyncratic principles. It's much easier to have that discussion when there's a public group of people you can point to with the same principles. There's strength in numbers.
Consider it a kind of "Alcoholics Anonymous" for interviews. You wouldn't say that can't work because people defect. Yes, people defect and drink again, but they joined AA in order to avoid drinking, and the purpose of the group is to help them with the goal of not drinking. And also to remove the private shame of admitting a problem, by showing publicly that it's a very common problem. This is not a perfect analogy by any means, but the gist is similar.
Great point - there will be a giant incentive to defect. I'm not interested in policing it.
I'm interested in raising the incentive for people to say no.
I'd do this by offering another job board for people who aren't likely to leetcode anyway. I would tailor it to people with great open source projects/ experience that might get looked over in a more traditional interview.
I would give this at least a cursory glace. This is how SO careers was marketed to me back in the day (regardless of whether or not that was true) and it ended up landing me in an interview process that was not as terrible as it could have been.
I'm with you on this. That said, something like this is happening anyway it will just take a while to play out. If companies keep interviewing like this, it will keep on selecting in a certain way and basically exclude people who aren't willing or able to play this game. This will impact on the company's products in the long run but the problem will be hard to notice if the company sits on a lot of money still, until it doesn't.
You're right that it's happening anyway and will take a while to play out. I'm interested in hurrying that change along if possible. I'd also like to give the people who aren't willing or able to play it more of an alternative.
