[cheshire137]

I disagree with this article completely. I'm a woman and a software developer and I think my Github is very valuable as a portfolio to me. Before I used Github, if I wanted some of my code to get shown off, I would make a blog post about it and call out specific chunks while linking to a ZIP of the whole thing. If a potential employer wanted to see samples of my code, they'd have to find my blog and dig through its archives. Now, they just find my Github. The author acts as though when an employer asks for someone's Github, it's going to be the main or only component to determine whether to hire or not. In interviews where I've been the interviewer, we've used it as a filter to determine if a candidate cares enough to code on their own, if they contribute to open source projects, what their coding style is like, what languages they gravitate to writing in, and just as a general personality guideline. It's cool to see the kind of stuff a person codes in their personal account, whether it's joke repos that give a glimpse at the person's personality and sense of humor, or actual serious projects.

[hvidgaard]

You either missed the point, or do not think it's a problem.

> determine if a candidate cares enough to code on their own

Which he is arguing that you are not a bad developer for doing other things outside of work. The vast majority of people need to not code to regenerate.

I can use myself as anecdotal evidence: I'm the goto guy when it's particular difficult to solve a bug, when it's a new framework, or when the teams are unsure how to solve a problem. I love coding, I constantly get compliments for my code and solutions. I do rarely code outside of my work. I used to before I got a "real" job after my degree, but now I (almost) only code at work. I usually think about solutions and architectures outside of work though, and I write a lot of pseudo code on paper if I get an idea for an algorithm - but I do not make binaries or contribute to OOS or a public Github repository. I have a spouse, children, friends, and hobbies that simply doesn't get as much of my time as they deserve.

I would never pass the bar at a startup that's looking for the typical startup stereotype developer. I'm 100% certain that I make more business sense to hire than all of your average workoholic startup developer, but I would never be considered. I have seen so many developers with great personality and glowing Github repo fail so miserably because they have poor work ethics and are unable to do "the boring stuff" that needs to be done in a business.

I can make a sensible plan, estimates that aren't completely bonkers, and I can tell when we're no longer on track to meet the deadline the same week it starts to slip. If I make a promise I keep it, or let you know that I'm unable to. I can also work completely agile, and not some "agile-but" that is so prevalent in the industry. In short there is soooo much that you need to consider when hiring. Screening based on a Github account is excluding developers that would be just the guy/gal you're looking for.

[jasonlotito]

> I would never pass the bar at a startup that's looking for the typical startup stereotype developer.

I'm not seeing a problem with this. Not because you are a bad developer, but that you don't match the type of person they want to hire at that time.

> I'm 100% certain that I make more business sense to hire than all of your average workoholic startup developer, but I would never be considered.

What's your experience as a "startup developer" that you feel justified in making that claim?

> In short there is soooo much that you need to consider when hiring.

Of course. But I don't see Github being the only thing to consider, nor do I see it as being something that should be ignored. It's a piece of the puzzle.

You're a programmer. A good one at that. But have you ever stopped to consider they need someone more than that for where they are at? Someone who can be more than a programmer?

[hvidgaard]

> What's your experience as a "startup developer" that you feel justified in making that claim?

A lot of my peers work in startups and small companies. Most of them cannot make a schedule that they can meet. Many of them use the waterfall method. Most of them love to use this New Tech, because it's cool (NoSQL dbs in particular). Most of them work so much that they're less productive than I am with 40 hours a week.

I have been the sole developer for a complete rewrite of a program that gross for over a million a year, and I'm certain, absolutely certain, that most developers, and especially those who moan at "boring" work and like to use New Tech, would never have shipped anything remotely sellable.

> have you ever stopped to consider they need someone more than that for where they are at? Someone who can be more than a programmer?

The only thing I do not have, that a startup needs, is the ability to do PR. For the actual conceiving a product and evolve it, I'm just guy.

[cnkeller]

This.

While I understand that many people enjoy writing code and do so for fun, there are a large number of fantastic engineers that don't (myself included). Just as I wouldn't give someone preference for a robust profile, I'm not going to penalize someone for lack thereof. There is only so much time in the day and if they can do ten hours worth of work in eight hours and choose to spend their off time with their family, friends, or hobbies, good for them. Knowing how to decompress and enjoy both work and life is just as valuable to me as crafting solutions to engineering problems.

[scardine]

If you are working with the same technology stack we work and are not finding bugs or implementing new features you are not playing in the same league.

We don't contribute to FOSS because we are hobbyists or good Samaritans, we do it because we need the features or fixes. We do it because in the long term it is cheaper and more efficient than maintaining a fork or developing a closed source component.

[chas]

Many software developers don't work with FOSS technology at work. I work in embedded systems and much of the library code I work with has been provided by manufacturers of the devices I'm using. I do find bugs in it and report fixes to the library developer, but they often have strange licensing and don't use github (or even public version control) so this work doesn't end up visibly attributed to me in public.

This doesn't mean that the people working in non-web industries "are not playing in the same league" with respect to skill, it just means that they don't have a huge public representation of the work they do.

[Anderkent]

> While I understand that many people enjoy writing code and do so for fun, there are a large number of fantastic engineers that don't (myself included).

Sure, but there aren't many people who hate coding but still do it (in significant amounts) in their free time. so having a github profile is still a positive signal towards being a good coder (assuming, of course, that practice causes improvement).

It would be wasteful for a company to ignore this information.

[hvidgaard]

> It would be wasteful for a company to ignore this information.

Very. All I'm trying to say it's not something you should even look at until you're later in the process of hiring.

[otikik]

> The vast majority of people need to not code to regenerate.

Citation needed. It seems to me that the majority of people don't.

[steven777400]

Anecdote here. I feel the same: when I had a job that was 30% coding, I did personal coding on the side. Now that I have a job that is 90% coding, I don't. I only have so much energy for coding, and by the time I get home, although I still have fun ideas that I'd like to do, I just don't have the energy to start writing anymore code. If I forced myself to code continuously, the overall quality of all my code would drop a lot. It's fun, yes, but it's also just too mentally taxing.

I recognize if I was planning to go on the market, though, I'd need to force myself to write some "on the side" code so I'd have a recent portfolio to show. I think it's just part of the expectation, the same way I would have to take time to write cover letters, etc.

[hvidgaard]

Burnout is not exclusive to software developers. Any human needs to de-stress - this is well known and documented by the medical professionals.

[fecak]

When you say 'Screening based on a GitHub account', I think it's important to differentiate whether we are screening out those that don't have activity or moving those that do to the front of the line. There is a difference, and I think that difference is somewhat key to the author's article.

[Nutella4]

There is no difference unless you frequently hire the people you've put at the back of the line because of their lack of GitHub presence.

"I hired the other guy because I screened out the non-GitHubbers" and "I hired the other guy because I gave preference to active GitHubbers" -- I don't see the distinction.

[king_jester]

> In interviews where I've been the interviewer, we've used it as a filter to determine if a candidate cares enough to code on their own, if they contribute to open source projects, what their coding style is like, what languages they gravitate to writing in, and just as a general personality guideline.

This is covered by the OP, but if you are using Github as a part of your hiring decision, you are going to be putting at a disadvantage many different kinds of people who do not or cannot contribute to open source or personal projects. The OP argues that Github is not necessarily a useful indicator of the things you mentioned and if Github becomes a very influencing factor for many companies hiring decisions, then it becomes de facto required and means you must work more as a programmer than you already do. This extra work is more able to be done with those that have free time and more personal resources (e.g. income), so some types of people are probably being excluded from your hiring process, leading to more a of a developer monoculture.

[woah]

Or there's increased pressure on people to generalize solutions so that they can release them on their own as github projects, benefitting everybody.

[seivan]

Github can be gender/race/age/orientation agnostic. It's just a portfolio of Code. Some people, who don't do that, but instead tweet, podcast, conferences dislike it.