[momothereal]

You're missing the point entirely: it's better to hire someone who shows some creativity, can follow through with their goals, and can bring new perspectives on top of their work-related experience, instead of a robot with the same exact work-related experience. Being passionate about something is a good indicator for these qualities.

[_0o6v]

Is it, really? Or is it more often than not just a facade for the same old hiring practices. Faced with someone who "loves gardening!!" vs. someone who has a ton of OSS contributions, who are they really going to hire?

[nikisweeting]

The person with OSS contributions has a lower bar to prove their competency for job-related tasks, because they happen to already have a body of work to show that competence.

However if we get a more competent candidate who likes gardening more than programming, we'll absolutely choose them over the pure passion person because they'll do the job better. They just have to show that competence in some other way, e.g. via the interviews or past job accomplishments.

[momothereal]

I think it depends on how the interview goes? If the candidate is "passionate" about watering their solo house plant, maybe not as much.

On the other hand, I can't imagine someone with tons of OSS contributions who _isn't_ passionate about programming at some level.

[olnluis]

It would be reasonable to think that the candidate with a ton of OSS contributions has a passion for something, which luckily for the company it happens to be coding.