>This makes the assumption that you just stop there and cannot ask follow up.
And your followup assumes that you're talking to a programmer and not a recruiter. I guess it depends on where you're interviewing but I've had more than one interview with HR/management only (needless to say that even tough it was the "first round" I didn't stick around). Anyway I would just ask them what for a technical description of my role in the company, things like SCM and CR assume that I know what tools are good/bad, it's perfectly possible that they are using something that I think is bad but makes sense for them, so I guess it goes both ways, I expect the interviewer to be competent, and I trust my instinct on evaluating that, and then just do the trial period.
Also if you're going to ask the details, then skip the platitude entirely and focus on what you're interested, unless you consider them courteous prelude to detailed questions.
> And your followup assumes that you're talking to a programmer and not a recruiter?
Assume? I'd know if I was talking to a programmer rather than a recruiter. Doesn't change what questions I would ask or expect answers to.
Let me ask you this: do you feel it's important that someone in HR be able to answer your technical questions? Do you feel you should be able to ask whatever programmer you interview with about compensation and moving expenses? Interviewing isn't just a one and done thing.
> I guess it depends on where you're interviewing but I've had more than one interview with HR/management only
And?
Still doesn't change anything I said.
> it's perfectly possible that they are using something that I think is bad but makes sense for them,
That's why you ask: so you can discuss this.
I don't understand: it seems like you talk about these things, but are disagreeing with me... just to disagree?
Whatever point your trying to make, you aren't making it.
> unless you consider them courteous prelude to detailed questions.
I felt that was obvious from the OP's comment. It's not uncommon. In fact, it's quite common.
Coming out and saying "What CSM do you use?" gives no real background no what you really want to know.
However, saying that "code quality is important to me. So, I'm curious about your methods of CR and SC? Also, I'd be interested in discussing your deployment methods."
And, frankly, that's what I got from the OP. Certain things were important to him. He merely didn't bother with the details, because, let's be honest, what's the point (the point is, as we both know, to avoid having people pick over that one meaningless word he used or missed).
Which leads me back to this:
> And your followup assumes that you're talking to a programmer and not a recruiter.
Yes. I thought that was obvious given the context.
>Do you feel you should be able to ask whatever programmer you interview with about compensation and moving expenses?
I feel like those things can be handled after the initial interview - when we establish that I'm a suitable candidate and they are actually worth working for. I feel that the programmer/CTO/who ever is qualified to make a technical evaluation should be the one to approve the hire and HR can do the negotiation afterward.
I think we're disagreeing about the context tough. I was quoting his statement because he used it as a example of the argument the article made from employees perspective - and my criticism is mostly about the article/recruiters using shallow questions that provide no information and focusing on trivial things and corporate speak on "company culture", "team skills", "decision drivers" and similar vague pseudo sociology/psychology and other buzzwords that allow you to pretend like you're doing something useful when you actually aren't qualified to evaluate/manage.
> I feel like those things can be handled after the initial interview - when we establish that I'm a suitable candidate and they are actually worth working for.
Then, that really negates most of what you were saying with regards to who is being asked. With that being the case, what was the point?
> I think we're disagreeing about the context tough.
Judging by what you just said, I'd say that you're having a difficult time with the context, and should reread what was written without bias this time.
And your followup assumes that you're talking to a programmer and not a recruiter. I guess it depends on where you're interviewing but I've had more than one interview with HR/management only (needless to say that even tough it was the "first round" I didn't stick around). Anyway I would just ask them what for a technical description of my role in the company, things like SCM and CR assume that I know what tools are good/bad, it's perfectly possible that they are using something that I think is bad but makes sense for them, so I guess it goes both ways, I expect the interviewer to be competent, and I trust my instinct on evaluating that, and then just do the trial period.
Also if you're going to ask the details, then skip the platitude entirely and focus on what you're interested, unless you consider them courteous prelude to detailed questions.