zlacker

> Honestly somewhat insulting that they made him go through a full external interview loop.

Wait, what? So if someone is a "name brand" celebrity, they should get to jump the queue and coast by with an "informal chat?" How is that fair? I don't care if I'm interviewing John Carmack, he's getting the same evaluation process I would give to any other senior candidate. Software Engineering's got enough problems with interviewing--it doesn't need an aristocracy that gets special treatment.

>>ryandr+(OP)
Technical interviews aren't a hazing ritual that we should all suffer equally out of some misplaced idea of equality. They're just one way of informing the decision of whether to hire someone.

>>ryandr+(OP)
I find it unlikely that even large companies put their superstar famous hires through the same hiring process.

>>jjeaff+b5
They don't for sure given a certain point. It is known. Have you ever heard of a formal interview process for execs.. No.

>>ryandr+(OP)
That's absurd. What he has built literally demonstrates he has the ability that the role requires - which is entirely what the entire interview loop is trying to ascertain. If you can ascertain that a person has a skillset without that loop, it is completely unnecessary.

>>ryandr+(OP)
The point of an interview is to figure out the capabilities of a candidate. If they are already known, it makes most of the interview process pointless.

>>defnot+P5
Actually there are processes for execs too, the board has to justify appointments. But yes, they can be a formality.

>>nsains+w8
Perhaps the role actually required skills other than those used to build Homebrew?

>>nsains+w8
That is simply not true, he wrote the package manager as a side project, that says nothing about if he is a good cultural fit for Microsoft.