We're currently hiring a recruiter, a security specialist, sales development reps, and director level positions, see https://about.gitlab.com/jobs/ We're a remote only company so everyone can participate and contribute equally. GitLab Community Edition is an open-source Ruby on Rails project with over 1000 contributors.
REMOTE ONLY GitLab - We're hiring a recruiter, a security specialist, sales development reps, and director level positions, see https://about.gitlab.com/jobs/ We're a remote only company so everyone can participate and contribute equally. GitLab Community Edition is an open-source Ruby on Rails project with over 1000 contributors.
Hi Matt, I am the recruiter at GL, I've reviewed your case, and I wanted to follow up personally. I'd like to address your concern and explain our process. Since the time of your interview, we have changed the process of discussing compensation within the first 15 minutes of a conversation to the end of a phone call. We understand it's uncomfortable and sometimes awkward to talk pay when you've just met someone. Hopefully this improvement will prevent misunderstandings in the future. Secondly, we never would ask you to agree to something that is below the calculators suggestion, however your expectations based on Level, Experience, or Location may differ from the recruiter or hiring managers' assessments. We do talk about compensation early and upfront with every candidate, because we use it to guide our offers. I'm very sorry that your experience was less than ideal, and I apologize for any miscommunication that happened as a result! We are always striving to improve our process so any more details/feedback you'd like to share about your specific situation would be appreciated so our PeopleOps team can ensure this mistake isn't repeated.
I'm not sure this really addresses the issue? Personally I actually would appreciate the upfront salary discussion as it could potentially save a lot of wasted time.
It seems to me the issue is more there was a difference in expectations between what the candidate perceived was their situation and what the recruiter believed. This is of course not uncommon, however from the sounds of it the candidate was not given an opportunity to reason their position. It could be that GitLab is simply not offering competitive renumeration based on what the candidate believed they could achieve in the same market. It could also be that GitLab undervalued the particular skill sets of the candidate. Of course the opposite may also be true.
Clearly there were differences in opinions, however by asking the candidate to sign an agreement to a specific salary based on no discussion is only going to cause issues for everyone. Either the candidate agrees, goes through the interview and decides "it's not worth it, and now there's no flexibility", they disagree and a potentially good candidate is immediately lost or they agree, take the job and feel like they are not being fairly compensated, which can have all sorts of consequences.
This is usually why the discussion happens at the end of an interview process, after the candidate has had the opportunity to demonstrate their skills and experience. Then if there is still a perception of a mismatch this can be reasoned with respect to what has previously been discussed.
> Secondly, we never would ask you to agree to something that is below the calculators suggestion, however your expectations based on Level, Experience, or Location may differ from the recruiter or hiring managers' assessments.
The candidate has clearly stated they were offered less than what the calculator suggested. It was your recruiters opinion that they did not meet the parameters entered into the calculator, however clearly the candidate believed that they did. In this case the recruiter must judge the cause of the disparity through discussion with the candidate and set expectations in terms of the results of this discussion. Again, simply telling a candidate "this is our opinion, you must agree to it" is not going to benefit anyone.
Just to be clear: the calculator takes Level, Experience, and Location into account. If the candidate and recruiter arrive at different numbers while typing into the calculator, then there is apparently miscommunication about one or more of those factors. But being asked to agree to something that is lower than what comes out of the calculator is just not something we do at GitLab. If it came across that way then something got lost in the communication.
Matt, since I deal with the comp calculator every now and then, if you'd like to provide more specifics of your situation, can you please email me on ernst@gitlab.com ?
I want to second this, we should never ask people to agree to something below the calculator. But of course the applicant and the interviewer might disagree about the appropriate title and experience factor for a candidate.
We have to decline 200 applicants a week at GitLab. We realize that interviewing is very stressful. We send a survey afterwards to get a net promoter score. The current average is 4.2 out of 5 for people that did not sign with us. Most applicants don't fill out the survey, we're not sure how that influences results.
You are saying most people don't do the survey and I think also most would think it matters how they rate the company for their own future prospects. 4.2 is actually pretty low considering this.
If you're actually calculating an NPS, the non-respondents should be considered detractors for a more accurate rating. Happy to talk more if you're interested (have done a lot of this as a user researcher).
Your calculator would probably need to be updated? I just tried it out and the difference between the locations Mumbai and Bangalore, the latter is close to 2.5x less than Mumbai (0.08 vs 0.20).
Your data-source for this is very clearly wrong.. any income/cost-of-living report for India will show that the cost of living is the same for these 2 cities.
Holy crap, you've just done your company - or if you are an external recruiter, your client - a huge disservice by posting this reply. You've done nothing to assuage future candidates' concerns. You've merely confirmed that your compensation offers, and likely the entire hiring process, is driven by undesirable corporate metrics. This makes GitLab sounds seem like a company that only knows how to regurgitate HR 101 tactics. No thanks.
GitLab, diversify/improve your recruitment strategy. Why you only have "the recruiter", aka a single person heading your recruitment, rather than a group of competent personnel, is concerning. Your public image is of a medium-sized company which is already established, not a tiny startup outfit wherein all hires rely on a sole (apparently inadequate) person vetting each potential employee.
Since the first part of your comment is addressed to Sasha I'll let her reply to it, but to address the second part:
There are multiple people involved in the hiring process here at GitLab, specifically several people who handle phone screens and resumes. The responsibility of vetting doesn't rest solely on one person and is actually a pretty collaborative process in my experience. As an example, I was able to vet every single candidate's resume myself for roles I was involved in hiring for.
With all due respect, the parent to my comment - an apparent employee at GitLab - said "I am the recruiter at GL". "The recruiter", not "a recruiter" How else is that to be interpreted? With whom does the candidate discuss compensation? This one single recruiter, or the manager of the team with whom the employee would be placed? Why does GitLab have a "recruiter", rather than an "HR employee" or "hiring manager"? The term "recruiter" generally means an external non-employee who is financially compensated for each new hire brought on board. "HR" or "hiring managers" are company employees, given a flat salary irrespective of the number or quality of hires. Which do you have?
Either way, the parent comment is full of language that raises red flags to competent developers. Personally, my first thought is "oh hell no!". It's possible that their comment is not representative of the company's effective policies, but when one perceives this kind of reply as an official stance of the company's standpoint, it is difficult to retract.
> With all due respect, the parent to my comment - an apparent employee at GitLab - said "I am the recruiter at GL". "The recruiter", not "a recruiter" How else is that to be interpreted?
The way I understood it, at least, was 'the recruiter who handled the interview with "matthewvincent"'. Doesn't imply that there are, or are not, other recruiters at gitlab.
And if so, at least to me it seems honest for said recruiter to come forwards personally, instead of some feel-good mumbo-jumbo from the PR department.
I'd LOVE to hear what red flags are in the comment from the recruiter or the other person - whom I guess is a manager. I've re-read it a few times but I see nothing but reasonableness. Then again, I'm neither a developer myself (does that make a difference) nor a recruiter...
Speaking from the candidate's perspective, I tend to avoid companies where money is discussed upfront. I want to be able to demonstrate the value I can add, and then have a negotiation about remuneration based on that value.
Bluntly, yes, it does put the candidate in a much stronger negotiating position but, hey, if you really want to hire good people then I'm afraid it's hard cheese. Conversely talking about remuneration upfront puts the candidate on the back foot because there's substantially less of a basis for convincing negotiation, so it really becomes about cutting costs for the company.
Unless you absolutely have to - sometimes you might not have any other option, and you shouldn't let pride blind you to that reality when you're facing it - I'd always recommend you avoid working for anyone where you've had to discuss money first.
The discussion of compensation is an extremely simple concept: you wait for the candidate to bring it up, and you discuss it only at that point in time. The interviewer should never bring up compensation before the candidate does, unless the potential employee is so shy that they are waiting for the employer to do so first. The moment an employer tries to pre-emptively bring up the topic of money before it makes sense, it shows their true colors - they care far too much about the money rather than the talent they are hiring.
It really is that basic. When the company cares more about the money than what the employee can bring, they've shown their company cares more about their internal politics then they do about their future success. Simple as that.
I don't understand. Why does Location matter? Does it matter if have 10 kids, or a lease on a Porsche, or 2 alimonies, or live in a McMansion, or my kid has cancer? Are those factors relevant? What makes Location special?
Because not all jobs are remote, so local jobs make up for a considerable amount of the job pool. For this reason, it's easier to get another job at your current location, so that's the competition the employer is faced with. If you live in an expensive area they're not paying you more to help you, they're paying you more to be more competitive with other companies in your area.
This line of argument is ridiculous. Are software companies pricing their computer programs based on location? Do folks in Ohio get to pay less than folks in New York?
What if you hire a great remote developer who lives in San-Jose, then she moves to Kentucky 6 months later, and their contribution is still the same. Why should their pay be adjusted?
Because a huge factor of pay is cost of living. The only reason people in San Jose are getting paid so much is because they are in San Jose and could not survive otherwise.
> Are software companies pricing their computer programs based on location? Do folks in Ohio get to pay less than folks in New York?
This is the sentiment I usually see but how are one's expenses or expected living standard is relevant regarding compensation for work? Imo it is very hard to argue against equal work => equal pay. At least from a moral pov.
Btw that is a lot of incorrect assumptions about expenses, including where someone's children might want to go to college, globally fixed costs like work equipment and cloud services, not to mention goods which are actually cheaper in the US.
Since when? I'm pretty sure I've never seen any variation in software prices except international variances, which are most often a case of with/without tax and currency fluctuations.
I think he simply read that as "Do they pay less (for living)?" and not that they pay less for software. No one could seriously think that you pay less for software based on your location, compared to other people in the same region/country.
Yes, he did, unfortunately. Gasp. The humanity. Now get over it. You understand that he meant paying less for a flat, not for an OS. So stop pretending and go on with replying that you still think it's wrong to base the compensation on the location's living expenses, for whatever other new reason that you now need to come up with.
> You understand that he meant paying less for a flat
No. If I understood that, I wouldn't have replied as I did, would I now?
> go on with replying that you still think it's wrong to base the compensation on the location's living expenses
But why is it a location's living expenses? If a company is paying people to work remotely, location should have zero impact on remuneration: they aren't asking you to live anywhere specific, so there is no business reason to use location as a cost factor.
I'm not hearing a counter-argument. The company needs to get good people to work for them. And this is a way of getting someone from a high-cost location to work for them. If the location's higher living expenses aren't covered for, the person would be unable to take the job. I don't know if you mean that the company should adjust their lowest pay according to the world's most expensive location, but that would probably not sustain the business.
If the company finds a person that they want to recruit, and that person happen to live in a high-cost location, they will need to pay up in order for the recruitment to happen. The only alternative would be to offer relocation to a lower-cost region. It doesn't have anything to do with any requirement. It's just a result from the way the world works.
Given that most people aren't hired that way, it's more like:
If a person wants to work for the company but their offered salary isn't high enough to sustain a high cost of living environment, the person will need to either move or find another job.
The company has literally the entire world to find staff - that's the whole point of remote workers.
True. Still, I think most companies will take cost of living in the area where the potential employee lives into account. When thinking about it it seems odd, indeed. I guess it is kind of normal and expected. But entirely rational it is not.
That's correct. We don't have any offices. You're free to work from home, a coworking space (by our expense) or anywhere else, but there's no GitLab office.
We have a 'headquarters', which is also where Sytse (CEO) lives, where there are a number of desks available for special occasions, but no one is ever required to work from a particular place.
So, to quote the original post that prompted the theory about "not all jobs are remote", which I then replied to:
> Why does Location matter? Does it matter if have 10 kids, or a lease on a Porsche, or 2 alimonies, or live in a McMansion, or my kid has cancer? Are those factors relevant? What makes Location special?
It does not matter how big you are on equal opportunities, work and compensation, when you can use your (cherrypicked) metrics to point your fingers at the market regarding salary discrimination, it would be irresponsible not to do so.
Put it another way, if it was legal to discriminate against <underprivileged group> companies would be all over it.
PS it is not about GitLab, I like their service (even better than GitHub) and it is great they are transparent about compensations. IMO if they were to eliminate location from their calculator they could get the cream of a very big talent pool.
This response is quite in the style of the Yelp/TripAdvisor response to a negative review. A thin veneer of consolation around an attempt to save face.
It looks like a perfectly reasonable response to me. What face is there to save? The fact that this was brought up "within the first five minutes" is far better than "after a plethora of interviews".
I had an interview with Parsely a few years back. Took over 3 weeks of back & forth before they rejected me with a reason that should have been squashed the first hour of the interview.
> Since the time of your interview, we have changed the process of discussing compensation within the first 15 minutes of a conversation to the end of a phone call.
Cynical read: We discovered people are more likely to compromise on the salary if they've already committed their time to the interview.
We're hiring developers, build engineers, service engineers, developers, sales development reps, and director level positions, see https://about.gitlab.com/jobs/ We're a remote only company so everyone can participate and contribute equally. GitLab Community Edition is an open-source Ruby on Rails project with over 1000 contributors.
We're hiring VP of Engineering, production engineers, build engineers, Sr. Go + Ruby developers, and more, see https://about.gitlab.com/jobs/ We're a remote only company so everyone can participate and contribute equally. GitLab Community Edition is an open-source Ruby on Rails project with over 1000 contributors.
For the Ruby dev positions, be prepared with a few links to open source Ruby projects you've written on Github et al, or contributions to open source projects. Not a hiring strategy I'd agree with, but I guess that's what they've decided on.
I asked if they'd do a 'challenge' of some sort, but they didn't like that approach, and returned with 'Please look at our buglist and submit a patch then'. I find that quite an inventive way to get your defects looked at.
REMOTE ONLY GitLab - We're hiring production engineers, service engineers, developers, business development reps, and director level positions, see https://about.gitlab.com/jobs/
We're a remote only company so everyone can participate and contribute equally. GitLab Community Edition is an open-source Ruby on Rails project with over 1000 contributors.
Guys who are applying to Gitlab, make sure you checkout the compensation for your experience and geographic location https://about.gitlab.com/jobs/developer/#compensation . This may bite you in the later stages of the interview. If you look at the extremes, the salary you would get in Luanda, Angola is 1500% more than what you get if you were in Valenzuela, Philippines.
While I appreciate the transparency, I don't think such large salary differences are reasonable especially with remote work. In the end you compete globally for remote employees and it possible to work remote for SV companies and get somewhat similar salaries than the onsite employees.
...and of course is living much more expensive in SV but I don't see why that should be "subsidized". No harm in people realizing that it's freaking crazy to pay that much rent.
The price is that high for a reason: sf has a lot to offer. Networking opportunities, job market liquidity (see all the ONSITE SF posts in this very thread), etc. Perhaps not 3.6 more, but it definitely beats a cabin in the Siberian tundra.
By correcting for rent, you give people that advantage for free. That's why it's unfair.
Trust me on that I am working with GitLab from past 6 months and I have never regretted a day. GitLab is always open for ideas and this is also work in progress. How many companies have you seen declaring their compensation framework :)
Hey there! Thanks for the feedback. I'm part of the PeopleOps team at GitLab and we are always looking to improve our comp. calculator. We know it isn't perfect yet and we need feedback from everyone to create the most fair and accurate compensation calculator for everyone. If you want to share your experience and suggestions with me, I'd be happy to chat with you directly and share them with our internal compensation committee. Feel free to email me at sasha@gitlab.com !
I like that you guys are being open about this, but the way you calculate compensation leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth. I very much dislike the idea that you, as an employer, are deciding what proportion of their income your employees should be spending on rent. You're also effectively saying that work done by someone who lives in a cheaper location is less valuable to the company than the same work done by someone who lives in a more expensive location. Maybe all employers do this and the only difference is that you guys are being honest about it, but still... yuck.
As someone who works remotely in a company that does take location into account, I can understand their perspective. I think there's a base value for work and then depending on the power of each dollar earned, there are multipliers to that that eventually give you your final salary. So it's "value of work" * location based spending power differences. Value of work stays constant.
That said I do think the factors used to calculate the salary can improve. In general, I love the idea of thinking of quality of life. Can a person in Sri Lanka enjoy a similar quality of life as a person in SF at least in terms of factors that can be controlled (a company can't control the quality of public transport or municipalities for example in a given location but can provide me the opportunity to purchase experiences or work around those matters).
And that matters because although rent in Sri Lanka is lower than Brisbane, buying groceries is actually more expensive. Buying electronics is certainly more expensive because of the enormous markups and taxes. Compared to a location in the US, I pay nearly triple the value of a given electronics item at times just for the cost of shipping it and then paying customs. Even travel becomes more expensive since I have much more lengthy Visa processes to go through. These numbers eventually add up and while I can save huge amounts of money by living frugally, if I wanted to live a good life supporting my wife and child, the number should be ideally 60k USD and above rather than 38k.
Should mention that Software engineers are considered to be some of the lowest level fodder in Sri Lanka and our good salaries can be something like 12-15k per year. Starting salaries would be something ridiculous like 3k USD per year (that was mine). But that's also why so many people are migrating to australia, US, and canada asap if they can.
Doesn't it bother you that you can provide the same value to your employer as someone in Brisbane, but only get paid a fraction as much for it merely because you're in Sri Lanka?
I'm a remote worker too (and I'm very happy with the way my current employer handles it). As long as I'm available at the times and places my employer needs me to be, why should they have any say in where I live or how I spend my money? I want to be able to manage my quality of life myself, not have it decided for me by someone else!
Well, re the value, I don't feel salary has ever been a great representation of value a person brings to the company. It's decent at a basic level but quickly breaks down as your value grows.
But to be honest I feel bothered but about something completely different really. My worry is for the person in Brisbane. I worry that people like myself will be seen as advantageous to hire and if it comes down to a close hire decision between me and someone in Brisbane I wouldn't want to be chosen because I require a lower salary. Gitlab does do this. I don't fault them either for that though. At the end of the day you want to save money. It's a tough conversation really. Quality of life and spending power are real things and value can actually be seen as relative when you look at how much it takes to give people equal opportunities from location to location. But this opens room for abuse and exploitation. I think remote working salaries vs location will be discussed more and more over time because there is definitely many shades of grey towards the "right" path.
> I very much dislike the idea that you, as an employer, are deciding what proportion of their income your employees should be spending on rent.
With rent as a multiplier, it's like they're suggesting 100% of your income goes to rent. It seems like a more reasonable way to take housing into account would be something like:
Salary = Base + Avg Rent
Using that formula, salary might be about $20k more for somebody in NYC than for somebody in Tucson. Using the actual calculator, it's $72k more ($117k vs $45k for senior level and average experience).
We found that rent correlates with market rates, see https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-c... "Perhaps surprisingly, there was a stronger correlation between compensation and rent index than with the more general cost of living index available through Numbeo (or the cost of living with rent index, for that matter); and so we moved ahead with the Rent Index."
It might do you well to check up on the pay scales for the mid-size American cities.
I live in Minneapolis and the rates offered are laughable, really. My last apartment was on the border of St Paul, if I had lived a block away your offer would have been about 10% less.
It seems to not take into account rent diversity within a city (and which level a skilled employee would pick given the opportunity).
GitLab has really gotten my interest over the past year with both trying it myself recently and seeing you interact with folks on HN. I'm currently searching for a new position but seeing the rates make applying a non-starter.
We're working on a global compensation framework, to be open and fair about compensation for everyone that works at GitLab. It's described in more detail on https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-c... . The local rent index (+ a fixed 0.25), NYC benchmark, level, and experience all play in to the compensation. Having the calculator has allowed us to make offers to people in lots of new locations. I'm always looking for ways to keep it robust (i.e. as simple as possible) while being fair as well. If you have specific ideas on how to improve it, please send me an email on ernst@gitlab.com
If you are really serious about being fair. Ask yourself this question: Why would a guy who can easily get 6K+ USD per month by working on Upwork, Toptal work for Gitlab for 1/3rd of that money and that too Full time?
Regarding using the rent index; that was a data-driven decision as described on https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-c...
but as I mentioned, it is a work-in-progress just like everything else at GitLab always is, and I'm open to alternatives / ideas.
Why are we bashing GitLab when they're at least taking steps to make their pay public? Every company has some version of this formula, you just can't see how off it is.
If I ever apply for Gitlabs (which I'm often tempted to do) I'm afraid that my history of conversations on HN will betray my tendency to bring up uncomfortable issues... Oh well... ;-)
Maintaining the idea of fairness is often important in the eyes of employees, but I wonder if it's actually a good idea in practice. Really, you want to hire the best people you can for the money that you've got. So with the system you have in place, if you have 2 equally skilled people, then there is a pretty big incentive to hire the cheaper one.
The end result is likely to be a bit of a skewed culture. Very skilled people are more rare than less skilled people. They are hard to hire, so you will tend to hire whoever you can find. Less skilled people are much easier to hire, so you will find them in almost any geographical location.
The end result will be a company where only the best people will be hired in the expensive region, while the inexpensive regions will have a mixed bag. Because very skilled people are rare, you will end up having inexpensive regions being overwhelmingly represented by lower skill levels (low skill -> easy to hire -> available in any geographic location -> cheaper geographic locations will be hired first)
This will create a power imbalance in the company because the highest density of high skilled workers will be geographically close and therefore in the same timezone. High skilled workers in lower paid regions may have a stigma attached to them because they come from a lower paid region -- and hence are associated with the higher occurrence of lower skilled workers. This may result in considerable friction over time.
I think you can mitigate this problem by creating a second tier pay system for your most skilled workers. This should be a harmonised pay scale and you should pay attention to trying to evenly distribute positions in this pay scale across geographic boundaries. To make it obvious which pay scale people are attached to, you can create new titles for the positions.
You will still have an "Us vs. Them" problem, but at least it will be people you have consciously decided that you want to promote in the company. It is explicitly not fair (in that not everybody is equal), but it makes a clear message of how you want the leadership to work.
It also makes salary negotiations a bit easier. Often people aspire to the highest level of compensation, even if their contributions do not warrant it. When people ask to be promoted to the special pay tier, it creates an opportunity for having a frank discussion about the person's performance. This can clear the air and set proper expectations -- or possibly indicate clearly to the employee that they aren't as valued as they wish to be. Even if someone leaves in this circumstance, it can often be to the benefit of all parties.
Hope you find this interesting/useful. It's always a tricky balancing act, so I wish you luck :-)
I think you make a great point. I do want to add some nuance:
1. We currently have great people all around the world. Many of them used to be in expensive locations but moved.
2. Because we're remote only the problem of concentration would be time zone only. But for practical purposes South America is a similar time zone as North America.
3. We have one career path (junior/intermediate/senior/staff/etc.) that is available to everyone based on performance.
Thanks for the comment, it is interesting and I'll share it with our Sr. Director of People Ops.
We have recently hired great people in Belgium based on the calculator rates. Of course there is no objective market rate, there are likely people getting paid more and less.
I live in Valenzuela, Philippines and can attest that the cost of life is very cheap here, I am not surprised that the compensation is lower. What I wonder is what happens if you get hired while working from the Philippines and then move to a more expensive city like New York, or vice-versa. Will GitLab change the salary automatically? Because one could easily create a bank account in the US and live in a cheap country and there is no need to disclose that information.
Wow, for exactly this reason I now have no interest in applying. GitLab went from meh to awesome over the last few years but for my city the compensation is just wrong. I'm not interested in applying to have that fight later (or being paid 20-40k under market)
What if I travel the world constantly? EU citizen. Last time I was home 1.5 years ago. Currently in Bangkok, Thailand. What my compensation country will be?
Wow, thats awesome. I should have asked for feedback when I got 'not moving forward' email when I applied last time. That recruiting page is really great and detailed too.
Hey There! If you've applied with GitLab and the past and asked for feedback, but not received it I'm sincerely sorry. Please feel free to reach out directly to me (sasha@gitlab.com) and I will try to find the details of your interview process and provide feedback.
Sure :) I'm still curious, although it happened a few months ago, and I got hired since. It's seems kinda unfair though, for the people who never got a message back, because they don't know the right person to ask, or they don't follow hacker news.
Oakland is almost that low and it's a 10-minute BART ride from downtown SF. It's ridiculous to have that much differential within a short commute distance, not to mention the variety of neighborhoods even within cities.
You may wish to look into the workable form, the 'Were you referred by a Gitlab employee' field is marked as mandatory.
(It kept throwing "can't be blank")
Hey There! Thanks for the note! We do wish that field to be mandatory, but we can definitely add "if not please insert N/A" Thanks so much for the heads up on that and glad to see you've applied :D
hamishtaplin; unfortunately coverage is not fully global yet; I think we have about 372 cities in there at the moment. This draws from Numbeo.com's data set on rent indices. But if your city is not listed, our default solution is the following "If you live outside a metro region we base our offer upon the lowest rent index number of any metro region in your country (or state, in the case of the USA), if your country is listed"
Knowing Ruby is not a strict requirement for all the positions https://about.gitlab.com/jobs/. But for few it will be great if you know any scripting language and just basics of ruby.
REMOTE ONLY GitLab -
We're hiring production engineers, developers, build engineers, CI/CD Developers, and more, see https://about.gitlab.com/jobs/ We're a remote only company so everyone can participate and contribute equally. GitLab Community Edition is an open-source Ruby on Rails project with over 1000 contributors.
Hi There, I am so sorry to hear that you've been waiting so long for a response. Our recruiting team, which includes myself, is trying to improve the application process and applicant experience. If you wouldn't be opposed, please reach out to me directly at sasha@gitlab.com and I will investigate what has happened and make sure you get feedback promptly. Understanding what has happened in your case is super valuable so that we make sure we can correct this in the future.
I hope to hear from you soon so we can get to the bottom of this!
I interviewed, we did some JS problem solving in a Google Doc and I even taught the Lead UI person, who was interviewing me, a feature to solve a problem that he had not seen before. Thought that was great then, they said "no" and would not explain why.
Hi inyorgroove. Sorry you did not receive feedback from me. I always try and give meaningful feedback. Feel free to send me an email, I would be happy talk over the examples we talked about in more depth.
Yes, everything is just a toolbar of tabs. Gitlab should revisit the UI with an empty blank slate with the constraint that there is almost everyone out there accustomed to using the other Hub.
Either be incrementally better than the Hub in UX or come up with a UX that developers wanted but never knew they wanted.
We're currently hiring a recruiter, a security specialist, sales development reps, and director level positions, see https://about.gitlab.com/jobs/ We're a remote only company so everyone can participate and contribute equally. GitLab Community Edition is an open-source Ruby on Rails project with over 1000 contributors.