* What is the salary range?

That of course will vary based on role, experience and location. We have hired people from 50+ countries which is remarkable for a company of 800. We tend not to hire in the most expensive locations because we get fantastic talent who live in less polluted, congested and occasionally self-important environments.

We do pay competitively; we have hired people out of FAANGs, and we constantly benchmark pay against our market data around the world. True remote work is worth an extra 20%, and quality of colleagues and focus is priceless. We also rigorously assess pay raises for gender equity.

* Who was the person coming up with the interview questions?

That would be me, mostly. I generally would have reviewed them, though occasionally some slip by.

Some of the role-specific questions would be from the hiring lead on the role, who is usually a senior person in that part of the business who has been through an onboarding process run by our global head of HR and me, and who handles applications for multiple jobs. These hiring leads are less susceptible to bias, and more experienced, than first-level managers, and it frees the first-level managers to focus on their teams and get good at being managers.

* What is that person's psychological profile?

If you are asking about my psychometric profile, I scored 94 on the test we use. If you really mean psychological profile, I don't know. I've been called all sorts of things over the years, but not by professionals ;)

* What is that person's biggest achievement since high school?

That would depend on what one values.

As a student I helped a small newspaper in Cape Town be one of the first in the world to be online. Started a company, Thawte, that helped lots of businesses outside the US get certificates for secure trading. Sold that well, and then trained to join a flight crew on Soyuz to the ISS. Ran several experiments in space, including the first stem cell experiments, which helped shape stem cell therapy research here on earth. Started a foundation which has funded tens of social change leaders working in health, digital, civil society and environmental areas. Started Ubuntu to democratise access to open source, made some mistakes but stuck with it to help Canonical survive and now thrive. Learned not to yell at people, learned to hire, hired hundreds of people. I also have helped start some botanical gardens because I like them, and am active in helping a small country chart a course for themselves that has made a measurable difference to the lives of that population. What, I wonder, do you value?

* Who are the people working in the team?

They are generally outstanding technically and socially, from all over the world, with a strong sense of shared mission to help open source be easier and cheaper to consume, personally and professionally, for companies and individuals.

* What are those people's psychological profile?

They vary greatly, it's useful to shape teams that complement one another.

* What're their education levels?

Generally but not exclusively they have undergraduate and graduate degrees.

* What're their work experience?

That varies widely, we hire both new graduates and people who could happily retire but like what we do and how we do it.

* What're their biggest achievement since high school?

If you can get a place in the company, you could ask them yourself.

> If you are asking about my psychometric profile, I scored 94 on the test we use.

So you're confirming that these "psychometric profiles" can be summarized as a number. Which means it's very easy to automatically apply a filter (reject any candidate with a score lower than 80), and even if there is no automated filter in place, you understand that people with access to this number will immediately be biased because of it? ("I have to review this candidate, but he fared 70 at the psychometric test, where every other candidate fared 90 or more...", and then obviously, during the interview, and after, the reviewer will be biased by that number.)

Yes, data shapes decisions. Should that not be the case?

A hiring lead is expected to find the best candidates, not just the ones with a higher number on a simplistic test. Your point is correct that a hiring lead with bad judgement or low engagement might get a bad result, but what hiring process cannot be undermined in that way?

When you don't like something, it's common to mischaracterize it with anecdotes of stupidity, then say it must be stupid. The argument is basically "a biased and obnoxious hiring manager could misuse that data to make biased and stupid hiring decisions". Yeeeeeees. Obviously.

The psychometric test we use is a series of numbers covering different aspects; it's simplistic, but not as simplistic as I reflected with a single number.

Hiring leads often progress a candidate that didn't ace that test because they see evidence of excellence in other data. And I often reject offers to candidates who aced that test because I think the result doesn't gel with reality, although I will usually interview a candidate if I have concerns about an offer.