[Tarsul]

there's a difference between hiring people with a proven track record (especially in this industry, e.g. known projects through github) and hiring your nephew just because he's a great guy. Although I do agree that knowing about people's projects doesn't say enough about the fit (e.g. teamwork). However, white board code reviews won't really help finding that out either, imo. Parent poster didn't want imply that the whole interview process should be circumvented, only the (or some of the) technical part - I agree.

[vacheron]

I am against the principle of any individual within a company being able to extend offers at will without any interviews or input from others. A "proven track record" is often too vague and arbitrary a bar and this just lends way to allowing personal bias in hiring decisions. Having interesting experience, projects or an impressive github allows you to get your foot in the door and get to the interview stage. It should not circumvent the technical interviews.

I hire developers and researchers for my company and we are very selective in who we choose to interview (small company in a bleeding edge field). We only consider engineers with relevant, impressive expertise and academics with solid published papers. Still, many of those interviewed don't receive offers and it's not because we ask them to recite some esoteric solution to a riddle. We have called candidates in just because they have promising github projects related to our work, only for these individuals to completely flop when questioned about basic fundamentals. Our interviews were extremely lenient and informal in these cases and we gave multiple chances to some.