> Funny how the FAANG companies never make open source work a requirement

When I got rejected from Google the feedback was I should do more open source work.

It's a non-commital, actionable, non-specific, diplomatic answer, that is a nicer way of saying: "Practice more."

If an interviewee reached out to me for feedback, and I weren't comfortable giving honest feedback[1], that's probably what I would tell them.

[1] There is no reason I should ever be comfortable giving honest feedback, every bit of interviewer training anyone has ever taken will tell you as much.

> It's a non-commital, actionable, non-specific, diplomatic answer, that is a nicer way of saying: "Practice more."

Yeah it didn't even make sense so I'm sure it was a generic 'you're not good enough' answer. I had hundreds of thousands of lines in a major open source project at the time. Not sure I could really do any more anyway!

they gave you feedback?

After I asked yes. It was given in-person not formally in writing.

Salesforce gave me feedback

all of the ones i know of that did this, ended up hiring some guy that had very strange expectations of what code should look like, coded the company into a corner and the whole thing flopped. ive now had to come in and replace two of these types, rewrite the code and get the company functioning once scale started to happen. ive found that often those with really impressive resume(like the over funded startups like), have a very limited skill set making them not the best candidates for lead positions anyhow.

Then they have early equity, get rich after you fix it, and everyone thinks they're smart.

exactly! the CTO that replaced me, sure thinks he is cool. but i know the code base hasnt changed much and i discovered my SU ssh keys were still working 5 years later. but i bet he got a lot less equity then i walked from.