[kasey_junk]

How does your no hiring without code samples work when it comes to IP encumbered industries? I for one haven't worked without a NDA that includes my code for over 10 years, and neither have any of the people on my current team.

Further, contributing to open source projects (outside of what I do for my employer) is also problematic, because nearly all the things I'm interested in/expert in are very related to what I do for my employer. Figuring out what is and is not work product and what I can and cannot release is a hassle I just don't want.

Seems like your rule and your reliance on GitHub is a very narrow filter and you are likely getting a very narrow subset of potential applicants.

[lmartel]

Keep in mind that the OP is probably in a very different industry than you are; if you have enough expertise that your interests are things you can't work on independently (like quant or security?), you will likely be applying to a nonoverlapping set of jobs as the OP, which (I'd guess) are much more interested in experience than a github profile.

On the other hand, if you're a startup CRUD hacker, your potential employers are much more likely to expect some personal CRUD projects in your github, since 1) that's easier to do than personal quant/sec/whatever work and 2) there are likely a lot more applicants for such jobs, so they can afford to filter for "hustlers"

[alok-g]

With reference to my comment here [1], here are the two weak points I see in what you wrote:

A. From a legal standpoint, AFAIK (IANAL), things that fall under the same trademark code are considered to be one industry. I have said this before in various discussions forums and while I am open to hear that I am wrong, no one so far as told me so. This means that "Computers, software, electronic instruments" are considered to be one industry [2] from a legal standpoint.

B. Even if the OP or you feel that you are in a very different industry, you/OP need to check your contracts for such IP issues before concluding that you do not have the same issues.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6245738 [2] http://www.tmweb.com/trademark_classes.asp

[alok-g]

This exactly. As I have written in many comments before, a large set of people have such IP issues from their employment contracts without even realizing that they "too" have such issues. From the discussions that resulted in those comments, my understanding is that unless you find your case to be otherwise, if you are working for someone else in the tech sector, by default you are under an employment contract that prevents you from having side-projects of your own. This seems to vary between countries somewhat. If you have not even read your contract, or were not even aware that you signed one, please do not retaliate before actually confirming your case.

If someone has side projects on Github, it may reveal something (good or bad) about their coding skills [1], but it also reveals, most probably, their lack of understanding of legal and IP issues [1]. (It may in principle be telling about their risk-thresholds if they were aware of the legal issues and still took the risk, but this is not the most probable case.)

In various discussions I have had on the topic, even companies who otherwise are open to their employees having side projects nevertheless block them from the same in their employment contracts. In other words, if it all goes well for the company, it's fine, but if things go wrong, the employee may be under a big trouble.

[1] While telling nothing on this front, good or bad, about the same for people without such side projects on Github or elsewhere.

[johnward]

I know our devs cannot share internal code and are limit to what OSS projects they can work. They actually need to get approval to work on an OSS project outside of work (yes). So that basically means they can't share the bulk of their work. The only option then is side projects on github, and this leaves you in a bad situation if your life outside of work doesn't involve coding non-stop.

[alok-g]

This still may not be the complete picture. I do not think, most probably, even side projects on Github or elsewhere is legally an option. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6245738

[johnward]

It may depends on laws in your area also. I see people in CA defend this because they have laws that allow "moonlighting". Not all places are like this. I'll admit that I no very little law. That's why a lawyer came in to explain the contract to us. He basically said don't sign it if you want to continue OSS projects.

[alok-g]

Hi John,

Being based in California, I am well aware of the laws specific to here also (though IANAL). After having read two books on IP laws, I totally agree with what this lawyer told you -- not to sign. If you were to sign, there are plenty of things there that prevent you from having side projects and moonlighting even if you are in California.

A question: So did you join the company without signing it? What was the reaction of the company? Were they just OK? I know of cases where not signing meant refusing to accept the job. I also know of one case where they allow you to not sign it, but then also bar you from receiving any sign-on and performance bonuses while you are with the company (i.e., you get only the basic pay plus benefits, no RSUs, cash bonus, etc.)

Thanks.

[johnward]

We were acquired and in order to stay employed you had to agree to the new terms. This is a very very large corp that's core business is IP, they don't make exceptions for this. I have bills to pay so I signed.

[alok-g]

This is what I expected too. Thanks for responding. I keep on asking these questions to people where relevant to understand how many people have these issues, and thereby also advice other people who are plain unaware.

A majority of people who are aware of their employment contracts report having these issues and cannot legally have contributions to open source or side projects on their Github profiles [1]. I extrapolate from that that those who are unaware of these also are legally-speaking bound by their contracts for these contributions. I still see this rising use of Github profiles to tell good developers apart from bad developers. There was a huge thread I had started on "Startup Engineering" Coursera discussion forums on this topic itself that generated over 50 replies, several new data-points, and also over 20 down-votes for me ;-)

[1] Unless they have appropriately written permission from their employers of course...

[3pt14159]

The people I hire are more useful to me if they can contribute to open source. Also, if you can't get me a code sample of SOMETHING, then 99.99% chance you could not pass our technical interview. I'm not asking for the world here. I'm asking for 10k lines of Ruby / Python / Lisp / C++ / C / ANYTHING.

[kasey_junk]

We are clearly in a different industry. Even asking for code samples in my industry opens me up to potential legal liabilities.

I've stopped interviewees during an interview when I felt like they were treading on what we would consider protected work product.

It is entirely possible I can't pass your technical interview, but I'd be surprised if everyone in my industry couldn't, and they are all as restricted as I am.

Finally, I hope that is a typo. Asking for 10k lines of code is beyond the pale for anything I've ever heard of. If you want 10K lines of my code you better be prepared to pay for it.

[alok-g]

My bet is that 3pt14159 is in the same industry too and unless he has is own startup, is probably bound by the same restrictions either without realizing or without caring.

>> If you want 10K lines of my code you better be prepared to pay for it.

+1.

I do not mind someone having me write code on a whiteboard during an interview. Asking for 10K lines is indeed out of question since this would invariably be code I have developed for a previous employer. I am working on my own startup now and still won't show 10K lines of code to protect the startup's IP!

There have even been a case where a colleague pulled out code he had written at previous employment for use in the current employment. We blocked him from doing that.