The author does not put on very solid argument. "a company I interviewed at was not receptive of my GitHub profile" is not a very good reason for hiding real name.
Also the author claims that open source contributors will face personal attacks, which is certainly not new, but fails to give any concrete examples or statistics. Overall, the article provides nothing we do not know yet nor it supports its argument clearly.
An active OSS profile is certainly more often an advantage than a disadvantage if I'm interviewing someone.
Obviously, some of the people crying over CoC's may also be annoyed to learn that I look at least as much on a persons intra-personal skills when I read through their github history, as I do on their code. Github is a social network. The people there are humans. If you have shown you can communicate well with people over code, especially people you disagree with, that's a very important skill, and it's a skill you can't convey in your CV.
I feel like being active on GitHub definitely helped me getting my current job.
Regarding "wrongthink", it's generally a good idea to keep politics out of your professional GitHub account if you want to work at a place that may not align with your opinions. Or your opinions are spicy in general.
The sort of people that post on HN can usually pick their jobs, which is why I'm surprised someone here would want a job where they have to self-censor constantly. If that caveat applies to the vast majority of jobs for you maybe you should reevaluate your opinions?
Honestly if a job wont hire me for what I do or say in my free time (as long as it's perfectly legal / not too crazy in the moral scope of things) then good riddance. If they wont hire me cause "I wont devote enough time to them" (translation might be, your hard work is intimidating to everyone working here so let's make up BS to not hire you) then good riddance. The interview process is a two way street, not a one way road. You want a job yes, but not one that is not going to be fitting to you.
Another factor to consider during interviews is some companies will say things to try and trip you up. They want to know what kind of person you are. Soft skills are always superior for coding skills. If you cannot communicate without having a childish rage fit you should not be a part of a team, you're useless to a team.
> If you cannot communicate without having a childish rage fit you should not be a part of a team, you're useless to a team.
This is very true. We had to let someone go recently because of this. He'd been there about 5 months. He was getting pretty good at the job, but every time he'd make a mistake he'd go into a rage. Or he'd just show up in the morning in a bad mood and be pissy with everyone all day. On the last week he was there he flipped out on a delivery driver, twice, freaked out at my coworker and got into a big argument with him when he asked him if he could work a Saturday to help with some maintenance that needed to be done, flipped out in the middle of operating a machine after he made a mistake, walked away in the middle of it, started smashing a bunch of things and just freaking out at himself. That was when he was let go, the owner came close to calling the cops on him.
It was too bad everybody tried talking to him for months to try and get him to relax. On good days, he'd helpful, eager to learn, did well and generally seemed like a fairly decent person. But on bad days...you never knew what was going to set him off and it just got to be too much for everyone to handle.
> I'm surprised someone here would want a job where they have to self-censor constantly
I would rather work a job where I'm self-censoring toward 'professionalism' if the rest of my team is too, than a job where everyone is their 'authentic self' with their real world politics on display, even if the majority agree with my real world politics.
In my current team, most people are self-censoring toward 'professionalism', we're very rarely talking about politics and even more rarely about one's opionions. So far it has worked well enough.
Still we're not censoring the puns, to the despair of one of the team members.
You can keep politics out of your own github account. But maybe people who will bring their politics to you, regardless. Maybe you didn't even realize that you did something "wrong". Maybe you said something that wasn't "wrong" at that point, but a few years later, it is.
> Or your opinions are spicy in general.
So if not anybody likes your opinion, it's your fault for having the wrong opinions...?
I'm hedging as much as I can here. That is certainly not the case, but I would consider that question right there to be critical to good introspection and growth as a person.
"If everyone hates my opinion, is that the wrong opinion to hold so dearly?"
It's certainly worth honestly considering if most people think your opinion is terrible.
Yes, I'm sure folks hiding jews in their attic in Nazi Germany would have been better off had they just decided to go with the flow.
It is worth being introspective, but you should keep in mind the fact that an opinion being popular has very little to do with whether it's right.
Reality is also that the vast majority of people don't care about the politics that get people ousted from OSS projects. It's more along the lines of "if a very loud minority thinks your opinion is terrible".
> generally a good idea to keep politics out of your professional GitHub account
People have been banned from Github projects for stuff that they said on Twitter that had nothing to do with their activity in open source, because it "made other contributors feel unwelcome". If the thought police will want to dig up dirt on you, they will gladly turn to any other social media available.
This. There have been historical cases where off-project controversies have gotten people banned and with the recent announcement from Linus Torvalds, I do believe we'll see more of them in the future.
> If that caveat applies to the vast majority of jobs for you maybe you should reevaluate your opinions?
That caveat doesn't apply to me now, but I'm one family emergency away from moving to a region where that caveat will apply to me. My opinions are not "spicy" they're just... ya know... opinions. Not milquetoast platitudes that shift to please the people I'm talking to.
I can't really follow the logic here -- maybe it's really just related to investment banks? I'm doing a lot of Github comments and worked with institutions that usually are considered secretive, and they usually don't care at all.
I've only heard once a feedback about my commits on Github and that was “I've checked you out on Github, cool, the other applicants didn't even have projects on it." Maybe it's a German thing, or maybe this guy is living in a bubble.
I work for an investment bank and have interviewed at plenty of other financial institutions, including other investment banks and hedge funds. Few have commented on my open source work, and those that have basically said, "We checked out your project, it looks pretty cool."
I had one particularly tech-savvy CEO personally reach out and try to recruit me because of my open source work. My project wasn't directly related, but he recognized the similarities between the problem domains, and that impressed me. But his wasn't a financial firm.
I can't imagine any tech-centric organization being hostile toward open source contributors, whether they're an investment bank or not. I could maybe see it on teams that aren't tech-focused and are led by old-school business types who just don't "get it". But teams where tech is their biggest asset, like electronic trading? No way. If you run into this sort of thing when applying for jobs in the financial sector, you're looking at the wrong jobs (or the wrong banks). Look for roles on electronic trading teams or HFT. The work is more challenging, and the compensation is better anyway.
Better still, apply at Susquehanna or Two Sigma, or some other place that really recognizes the value of their engineers. Stay away from huge banks like Citi.
> If you run into this sort of thing when applying for jobs in the financial sector, you're looking at the wrong jobs (or the wrong banks).
I agree. Personally I couldn't imagine working at a company that was hostile to my open source contributions, anyway. If I was contributing to something controversial, maybe.
Of course that's a reaction coming from privilege: I can afford to turn away potential employers like that. Maybe my Github profile has turned people away. If so, I don't see it as a loss.
On the other hand, I've fairly regularly gotten contacted by recruiters pointing out they've seen I have a variety of Ruby projects on my Github, for example, so overall I'd be surprised if it is overall a bad thing for most people.
maybe it's really just related to investment banks?
Banks are indeed one of the most secretive and protective institutions, along with a lot of other related ones in the financial sector. They also tend to have more authoritarian practices, which can explain why they're not so keen on their employees doing even remotely-related stuff outside of their work.
Not always. I got my Apache commit rights while working for an investment bank, where I was employed specifically to work on open source code, and since then have worked on multiple open source projects on GitHub, and sometimes even for investment bank clients interested in using our open source software. I don't think having a GitHub or Apache account is a hindrance to employment at all, these days.
Generally decent advice. I like my privacy and I use handles everywhere I can, I've even worked remotely and the employer didn't know my real name until they had to send the first paycheck :)
The reasoning in the article seems weak tho. I would guess the author is lashing out after a bad interview or something.
It depends on what you do. If your identity and participation in public activities is integral to why you're hired, you don't really have an option to keep everything private. Personally, I decided long ago that if I'm not comfortable saying or doing something using my true name, I probably don't need to say or do it. Yes, that's a somewhat privileged position to be in but nonetheless it's the case for me.
> “we are suspicious that you are too active on github and will not commit to this job”
In other words: You don't want to work there. If they see that you are busy in your time off on Github, it can only be an upside. (But note: no downside if you don't use github at all)
Exactly my thoughts. If an interviewer said that during a phone call, then I'd wave good bye and hang up as that is simply not a sentiment I can be OK with.
Correct, but too dry and sterile (unless that's what you were going for, in which case I applaud you): it was first a handle, then with the InterNet and IRC a nick.
You were told never to give your real name or any identifying info on the internet. It wasn't until facebook that people started using their real name in droves. Another reason to despise facebook.
Lots of people used their real name on the internet early on. Some didn't, especially if discussing particularly sensitive or controversial things, certainly, but most of my early conversations online were with people using their real names.
When I first got on irc in '94, I often exchanged name and phone numbers with people within hours of talking to them, and more than once I met people in real life within hours of talking to them. Nobody batted an eyelid at that at the time.
The panic over people giving out their real name started first years later, especially as people started getting worried about strangers talking to children more than anything.
> When I first got on irc in '94, I often exchanged name and phone numbers with people within hours of talking to them, and more than once I met people in real life within hours of talking to them.
But you didn't use your name as your nick did you? I never did. The same thing with BBS.
> The panic over people giving out their real name started first years later
No. Even before the media generated panic ( of primarily AOL ), you weren't encouraged to use your real name. Of course after you talked to people and got to know them, nothing stopped you from exchanging numbers. But that wasn't the norm.
I can't believe you brought up irc. There is a reason why in irc you used your "nick". The culture of irc was anonymity. IRC clients and many channels discouraged using your real name.
> But you didn't use your name as your nick did you? I never did.
Many of us did, many didn't but left their real name readily accessible by e.g. making our e-mail visible and having Finger enabled.
> The same thing with BBS.
Most of the BBS's I used asked for real names, and from meeting people at BBS meets I know most of the people I spoke to on BBS's were truthful.
> No. Even before the media generated panic ( of primarily AOL ), you weren't encouraged to use your real name. Of course after you talked to people and got to know them, nothing stopped you from exchanging numbers. But that wasn't the norm.
Again, completely counter to my experience. You weren't "encouraged" in most cases, so much as copied what other people did, and most people around me used our real names all over the place.
> I can't believe you brought up irc. There is a reason why in irc you used your "nick". The culture of irc was anonymity. IRC clients and many channels discouraged using your real name.
Not the ones I spent most of my time on. That became more prevalent later, and in certain circles. Certainly if you were spreading warez etc., yes.
Sounds like the author is trying to work in places that just are not going to be worth him working for (immediately they're giving him red flags). If I got the sort of feedback he gets when applying at places I would find a whole region of programming to get involved in. Banking software jobs are not the only places to work at. It almost sounds more like "it looks like you're a very devoted developer, if I hire you, you may outshine everyone else here, including ourselves, sooo we're not going to hire you."
> You will have been sold a story about how contributing to Open Source projects will give you exposure, and that companies will be fighting to hire you. Sorry, it’s all lies: it was true 20 years ago but no longer.
I disagree, there are many companies that actively look for Open Source contributors to hire. Sure, it's not all companies, and very few people will be having companies fight to hire you - but that's really never been the normal case. What's been the normal case is what's still happening - many companies are hiring contributors to the projects they depend on.
> Do you know what I’ve been asked by every investment bank I’ve ever interviewed at? “we are suspicious that you are too active on github and will not commit to this job”
> The places that didn’t ask were unable to see my github profile, because of their firewall.
Ah. Okay, so investment banking as an industry are shying away from Open Source contributors. That might well be true, I have no experience in that industry. But, importantly, my lack of experience in that industry (and, many other industries!) prevents me from making blanket statements..
Weird view on OSS...
I'm still in university but my GitHub profile would've already gotten me 13 offers if I would've been into starting to work for a company.
It got me my first talk on a conference, got me in contact with a lot of different, very interesting opportunities and people from around the world.
Haven't seen a single disadvantage in it, yet. Not even one.
On one hand I understand what's being said, but on the other hand I'm not sure the author is paying attention to the endgame here. So you hide your open source work, or charity work and get a high paying job at an investment bank -- an investment bank that's worried that you might not be "committed to the job" if you work on open source.
Does the author understand what kind of "commitment" they are talking about? Do they understand why investment banks pay the kind of money they pay for software developers?
If it were me, they'd be damn right that I'm not "committed". Why do you write open source software? Why do you work for charities? Because you are free to do so!
In my youth, I gave up my freedom in order to work. I will never do that again. It was a mistake for me. I think it is probably a mistake for anyone who loves their freedom. It's a mistake for people who want to be free to help others when others need help, not when the office allows it (which will be never, BTW).
Yeah, you can sell out, and for some people it's probably incredibly worth it. But if you judge the value of your life by what you do rather than what you receive in compensation, then I really don't think you'll be happy with that trade-off.
I never found a company which would judge OSS contributions negatively and I've seen quite a few of them (I tend to change job very often and I've 10+ years of working experience).
I am wondering whether the author of the blogpost considered the option that what they were telling him was just an excuse. Maybe the problem is not his OSS but the fact that the author behaviour in the community is not exactly as brilliant as he may think and that made him a controversial figure?
Of course, being anonymous means you can start any flame you like, treat people as you want and get away with it; not sure that that's the best way to achieve less toxic communities anyway.
Hiding your real name in Open Source and using a multitude of pseudonyms instead is plainly bad advice for most people. Yes, you will be covered for that one employer that will not like your OSS profile. But you are giving a hard time to the majority of the employers who will have to jump through the hoops you've set to get a picture of your OSS contributions.
Also, what would be the reaction of a recruiter reading a resume that lists e.g. 5 different github profiles? I doubt the recruiter would think "very smart of him". More likely, they would be left wondering if the applicant is self-important, a tinfoil hat wearer, or an outright liar. At any rate, probably someone they wouldn't be inclined to hire.
> Yes, you will be covered for that one employer that will not like your OSS profile. But you are giving a hard time to the majority of the employers who will have to jump through the hoops you've set to get a picture of your OSS contributions.
They will have to jump hoops only if you dont want them see it. Otherwise you just include link in your CV and they dont have to jump anything.
> Also, what would be the reaction of a recruiter reading a resume that lists e.g. 5 different github profiles? I doubt the recruiter would think "very smart of him". More likely, they would be left wondering if the applicant is self-important, a tinfoil hat wearer, or an outright liar. At any rate, probably someone they wouldn't be inclined to hire.
I can see why recruiter would think "weird", I dont see why he would think "self-important, a tinfoil hat wearer, or an outright liar".
> They will have to jump hoops only if you dont want them see it. Otherwise you just include link in your CV and they dont have to jump anything.
If you apply for a niche position with <10 applicants in total, yes they will jump. But if they are flooded with applications, no they won't; they can safely bet that there is another applicant with similar qualifications and more accessible OSS presence.
> I can see why recruiter would think "weird", I dont see why he would think "self-important, a tinfoil hat wearer, or an outright liar".
That's just a few different shades of "weird" as a person.
The resume is all the recruiter knows about you at that moment. Do you really want any "WTF"/"weird" spots in it? This is setting up the board for the recruiter to make the (subconscious) deduction "weird resume" -> "this may be a weird person". They may or may not do it, but it surely won't get your resume any points.
> But if they are flooded with applications, no they won't; they can safely bet that there is another applicant with similar qualifications and more accessible OSS presence.
That is quite unlikely. You are overestimating amount of programmers with non minimal oss presence. And, if they are flooded they won't search you by name. They might maybe click on cv link.
> That's just a few different shades of "weird" as a person.
This sounds like the investment banks are reacting to the Goldman Sachs case against Sergey Aleynikov, either they want to avoid someone “stealing” their code, or they just don’t want to have to deal with that kind of situation. It’s certainly not right, but if you work in that sector, it’s something you need to be concerned about and take these kinds of attitudes into consideration.
Using pseudonyms is never a bad idea but even when I did this in the past I've had to many near misses of uncovering myself because I fucked up some git config, or had the wrong browser tab open or just replied to a tweet from the wrong account.
I admit it, I'd be the world's worst spy. Too honest and too clumsy.
Its certainly true that open source projects eat into your work time. The real question is: can your employer find a way to turn this to their advantage? If you dig a little to find out how open sourcerers put bread on the table, it soon becomes apparent that employers pay them to mess around on GitHub. Seek these organisations out.
People do this quite a lot it seems. I have spent a lot of time over the past year trying to dig up someone’s email and real name from GitHub (shameless plug for https://github.com/dblock/fue that helps with this).
Privacy is dead. I think that being public allows you to control what’s being public and that’s the best we can do.
> Talking about "attacked for wrongthink" or "are certain that they are not one of the politicians" confirms that suspicion for me.
Considering people have been fired for wrongthink, why are you dismissing it so easily?
Also, you do realize that plenty marginalized communities ( lgbt, atheists, pro-democracy supporters, feminists, etc ) require a level of anonymity in the US and around the world right?
> Long story short: If you want to be an asshole using your real name is probably not a good idea. But why do you want to do that in the first place?
There are plenty of legit reasons to be anonymous. Why was the nytimes OP-ed writer working in the Trump administration anonymous? Because he'd be fired for wrongthink.
You sound exactly like the chinese government. It's amazing how similar the authoritarian leftists talk and think exactly like the chinese government.
There is an absurd amount of pro-censorship and anti-privacy individuals on here all of a sudden.
Also, since when is it a good idea to limit free speech, privacy, etc just because of "assholes"? Why aren't you using your real name here if you really believe what you say?
Also the author claims that open source contributors will face personal attacks, which is certainly not new, but fails to give any concrete examples or statistics. Overall, the article provides nothing we do not know yet nor it supports its argument clearly.