1 |
On 04/03/2010 02:33 PM, Richard Freeman wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> |
4 |
> I think the problem is that our recruitment process uses the ability to |
5 |
> answer complex technical and organizational questions as a way to assess |
6 |
> maturity. I think that maturity is far more important than technical |
7 |
> skill in a distro - a mature person will recognize their own limitations |
8 |
> and exercise due diligence when stepping outside of them. Instead of |
9 |
> playing 20 questions and going back and forth with recruits, maybe a |
10 |
> better approach would be to cut down the questions dramatically (or more |
11 |
> clearly put their answers in the documentation), and then use other |
12 |
> approaches like references and interviews. A new recruit might be given |
13 |
> the names of 5 devs that they will need to interview with for 30-60 |
14 |
> minutes by phone or IRC (preference on phone), and they will need to |
15 |
> submit references, who will be contacted. When we hire people at work |
16 |
> we don't play trivial pursuit with them, we use an interview to get a |
17 |
> feel for what they're like and how they handle situations, and we screen |
18 |
> resumes and references to determine experience. I'm sure any of the |
19 |
> professional linux distros would work in the same way, but perhaps |
20 |
> somebody should ask around and see how it is done elsewhere. |
21 |
> |
22 |
|
23 |
The sessions also teach them a lot. I regularly get feedback that people |
24 |
learned a lot during the sessions. Reading a lot of technical |
25 |
documentation doesn't motivate many but the reviews do. |
26 |
|
27 |
Regards, |
28 |
Petteri |