Ask HN: Why don't companies replace code tests with open-source contributions?

[fnwx17]

I'm asking this in the context of code tests that are used during the interviewing/hiring process.

There is a general consensus that generic code tests that are frustrating and time-consuming for the developers, but that it also doesn't give the company too much insight into someone's skill set.

One thing we thought of was to replace those tests with contributions (or bug/issue fixes) to a company's open-source project.

Obviously, if it were an easy to implement idea, more companies would be doing it already. And so we're trying to figure out what are the obstacles and barriers to this.

We also created a typeform survey in case you have a few minutes to spare (6 mins is the average completion time) https://workshub.typeform.com/to/OqzTZS

[nostrademons]

Many of them already do weight contributions to open-source projects heavily, particularly their own open-source projects. I remember that when I was in college, over a decade ago, one of the major reasons to contribute to open-source was to build your resume and develop real connections at companies.

The reason they give you code tests is because very often the type of work you will be doing on the company's proprietary code base is different from fixing bugs & implementing features on an open-source codebase, and they want to ensure that you have the skills to do real coding where there isn't an existing codebase to build off. For example, my referrer at Google was someone who I'd worked on a volunteer PHP-based Harry Potter fandom website with. That's great, but very different from the sort of heavy algorithmic code that much of my work at Google entailed.

[eesmith]

> "One thing we thought of was to replace those tests with contributions (or bug/issue fixes) to a company's open-source project."

That sounds like you are saying that job applicants need to do unpaid work which economically benefits the company before being hired.

Do they need to sign a CLA as well, or do they at least get to keep ownership of the copyright?

More specifically, if I contribute something under the AGPL to an otherwise MIT-licensed project, will that count against me?

If the point is to see if my skill set is relevant, then that shouldn't matter, right? Because you can still evaluate it, hire me, and have me redo the work under a standard employee work-for-hire arrangement.