For automated testing the argo-workflows project is amazing and worth looking into.
I think when you look at the entire argo suite you start seeing something that could really disrupt the way we use products like gitlab, particularly for startups.
The data on the document is just a snapshot of the data in electronic systems. These systems are used every single day when you use physical documents in healthcare or any other government-related scenarios to double-check on that physical document.
Interviews are always biased, chances are dozens of candidates wouldn't get the same puzzle, and dozens would get different interviewers that help them in different ways, and the candidates may or may not have the puzzle memorized which has literally nothing to do with their actual skill.
Everywhere else in the world, when you hire someone, you ask to see their previous work. It is universally the best signal, you don't have a carpenter build a chair on site, you look at what they've built and talk to them about it. And you certainly don't ask them to build a chair in a style they have never done before, you just see if you like their style.
> Everywhere else in the world, when you hire someone, you ask to see their previous work. It is universally the best signal, you don't have a carpenter build a chair on site, you look at what they've built and talk to them about it. And you certainly don't ask them to build a chair in a style they have never done before, you just see if you like their style.
This analogy is flawed. Software engineers work in teams on any project of worthwhile complexity, even open source ones. It's not simple to parse out what your contributions are.
To validate expertise, universally, everywhere else in the world, many professions have licenses, certifications, and governing bodies. They rarely take your word for it. See lawyers, doctors, civil engineers, dentists, architects, etc. etc.. Software engineering has none of these things, and until the field matures, we use adhoc methods. From prior experience, I disagree that the best method in finding competent engineers is to simply talk to them about projects. This is easy to fake, and you may even have colleagues you've suspected of doing so.
Having someone walk through their open source work is not easy to fake, reading someones PRs and comments is not easy to fake. And its real life work not some memorized puzzle nonsense
I agree - for me the idea of shared pipelines is what kills a lot of the motivation - I don't who what the person will be working with, what on, I might have a passing familiarity with another interviewer (but most likely not) - it's difficult to treat people as anything else than a calendar appointment.
Are you sure it's not in your ability? Whenever I introduced something like that people were in general indifferent-to-happy, as long as you did the majority of the job and they could somewhat easily run those tools (e.g. anything written in Java is more or less a lost cause because people cling to their IDEs)
To be honest I looked at github - there's barely any activity, projects have little if any descriptions, the professional experience has been 12 years of mix of project management and customer support, some 2 years of freelance and contract devops work. Medium posts are mostly crypto related. Now compare that with LinkedIn about section, and there's an entirely different picture.
It could be that the reason you are getting the interviews is the Linkedin profile (especially as often companies encourage interviewing people with atypical background), but maybe you fall short of the image you are projecting? The form of the interviews might not help highlight your skills, of course, but it's probably not the only factor.
That being said it's very US-centric - if you want to get materials from a specific region, turn to region-specific resources. For example when researching Poland, you would use local resources, maybe FamilySearch for source material, and MyHeritage for other people's trees. Ancestry is simply not very common and has even less resources than FamilySearch does.
It's probably worth noting that some of those indexing efforts make more harm than good, there's a large chunk of Polish records which were "indexed" by people who clearly have absolutely zero knowledge of Polish, and the results are SIGNIFICANTLY worse than any OCR could have been. Always compare to source material to avoid surprises like that.
Arolsen archives are the primary place to look when you are looking for traces of slave laborers in germany or prisoners of concentration camps. When germany was defeated, a large chunk of surviving records was centralized there:
