| ▲ | bcantrill 6 hours ago |
| I'm not sure what "mess" you're referring to -- that we have a writing-intensive hiring process? That we get a lot of applicants? That we therefore end up rejecting a bunch of people? That we read application materials thoroughly? That we don't provide specific feedback on individual applicants (even though we explicitly state that/why we don't)? To state clearly what I feel we have said many times: Yes, it's hard to get a job at Oxide. Yes, we get a lot applicants. Yes, we ask a lot of applicants upfront. But the payoff (and the reason it's worth the risk and the work for the right person!) is an extraordinary and uplifting team -- one that I daresay each of us counts as being of unparalleled breadth and depth in our careers. |
|
| ▲ | contingencies 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Baby got backplane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X53ZSxkQ3Ho&t=80 |
|
| ▲ | q3k 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The particular 'mess' I've encountered was I applied (wrote 11 pages of interview material) on 2024/09/29 and then received a canned 'yeah whoops sorry for taking this long, not interested' on 2025/03/24. That's almost 6 months of delay from submission to first contact. Terrible process. You need to give feedback early if you're not interested in someone, not leave them hanging for nearly half a year. |
|
| ▲ | FireBeyond 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Several folks complained about the tremendous amount of homework they had to do after the initial screen, and once submitted, were ghosted. > That we don't provide specific feedback on individual applicants (even though we explicitly state that/why we don't)? Your response is not a response to the OP's claim. The OP didn't claim you didn't provide specific feedback, it was that they were entirely ghosted mid-process. And that others said the same. But even beyond that, your response doesn't align with your own careers page's "Hiring Process": > If candidates aren’t advanced into interviews by the process outlined in [rfd147], an explicit rejection should be sent. The level of oversubscription for Oxide roles means that this rejection will likely be non-specific — which is naturally frustrating for applicants that have put a lot of energy into their materials. Candidates may well respond to a rejection by asking for more specific feedback; to the degree that feedback can be constructive, it should be provided. Which would be in alignment: > Decency > We treat others with dignity, be they colleague, customer, community or competitor. Here you just come off quite defensive, and argue that you at are Oxide are "very clear about" things that you say quite the opposite about on the very directions you tell candidates to read. If what you say is true - and I can absolutely believe it is - fine, update the docs and the site. But don't come here and gaslight people into "I don't understand the problem. We're very clear, we've been very clear, people should not be complaining about this." Source: https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0003 |
| |
| ▲ | db48x 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The OP didn't claim you didn't provide specific feedback, it was that they were entirely ghosted mid-process. And that others said the same. Eh, if even a small percentage of those emails end up in a spam folder then there are going to be people who think that they were ghosted. They didn’t ghost me. Alas, they didn’t hire me either. | | |
| ▲ | FireBeyond 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure. But even then Bryan says people have no right to be upset because they are “quite explicit” that they don’t provide feedback, while a candidate applying for a job reads that the company prides itself on not ghosting anyone and providing whatever possible feedback. | | |
| ▲ | pizzafeelsright an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, I thought about applying. Investing 6 hours into applying for a position should warrant a response beyond 'we are going to pass' | | |
| ▲ | FireBeyond 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | On my last job search, I got to a few final rounds. In two cases, companies offered me a 15 minute "debrief" with the hiring manager, which I found invaluable - both gave sincerely good advice, and also helped the "what am I doing wrong?" with a "you were hireable as-is. but someone was moreso." But generally, the more demands you put on a first round, the less likely I am to apply. I've seen companies asking for 8-10 multi-paragraph each long form answers to even get to a hiring screen. For one recent application, this was one of the questions, of eight: "Describe a time when you had to make a tradeoff in roadmap items. Describe each option and their merits, and the decision-making criteria you used. Describe what stakeholders you spoke with and how their input influenced you. Describe how you communicated this with the team, and customers. Be specific about all points and clear on the exact role you played in this process." People can say "well, it's a good screen because if you won't put effort into that, will you put effort into your work", but if your argument is that you need to do such things because you get 500-1,000+ applicants per position, you're going to have a hard job convincing me that a human reads every one of those, and not just the subset that are not automatically routed to the trash by your ATS and/or AI. So my end retort to that is "well, it's a good marker of the level of respect I can be expect to be treated with as an employee". |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | mrcwinn 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I understand that all employees have equal salary pay (apart from sales people who can earn more and are valued higher). Do all have equal equity and voting rights, at least within common stock? And since transparency is a core value and principle, will you commit to sharing your cap table publicly? |
| |
| ▲ | bcantrill 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I appreciate that our approach to compensation leaves some with overwhelming feelings of whataboutery, but no, we (of course?) do not have equal equity: as we have said (several times?) equity broadly compensates for risk -- and risk has gone down over time. (I used to tell people to "value the equity at zero"; I don't say that any longer because it plainly isn't.) In terms of the cap table: that's a bit of an odd request? On the one hand, there are no real secrets hanging out on our cap table -- but on the other, based on your tone, it doesn't feel like the request is terrible earnest? (And, I hasten to add, transparency is a value -- not a principle.[0]) [0] https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0002 | | |
| ▲ | mrcwinn 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Risk going down over time is another way of saying strike price and value has gone up- which is another way of saying, some employees are gaining in equity value more favorably than others. What risk, exactly, did you take on? Did you personally loan the company money? But in any case - equity is part of compensation, and your company claimed everyone deserves equal compensation. It wasn’t earnest, you’re right, but only because I knew how you’d respond. The intention was to point out the obvious inconsistencies in your “values.” | | | |
| ▲ | segsehhjehj 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | dijit 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Hey man, You’re not getting across a reasonable point here. Maybe take a step back and think about what you really want to say. Clearly something is landing wrong, but exactly what is not being well communicated. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
