Make 2-part onsite flow the default

[bobmazanec]

Document the 2-part "on-site" interview flow and related ideas discussed in #67 and identify it as the preferred format (e.g., allow candidates to use the 4-hour all-on-site format if they feel they cannot dedicate time in advance).

I am hesitant to say this PR "closes" or "addresses" the issue yet because this branch updates only the Tiny URL challenge and the template so far.

The Chess challenge requires updates for the 2-part flow — e.g., separate the "advanced" rules (e.g., en passant, castling, check, etc.) from the "basic" ones to be included in initial requirements. It is currently in a different repo, so there is no way to really "synchronize" and associate the changes.

My preference is to copy the existing problem description into this repo, then modify all of the comments/documentation in each language's files 'here' so that all of the changes can be in one branch and merged into master together.

Thoughts (on that and/or the PR so far, too, of course)?

[codinronan]

@bobmazanec I read through, you're very thorough, not even a typo I could find!

With regard to the chess challenge - I think the time has come to merge that challenge into this repo so that we have a single place where all that is managed. For historical reasons it was its own repo but that is no longer needed.

Others feel free to chime in but that's my 2c.

[codinronan]

About the 2-part on-site: I am getting alot more out of these onsites, honestly. I think they are a better indicator of the candidate's capabilities and performance. For instance: You get to see where they push themselves to, and what the limits on their knowledge/experience are, and these are valuable keys.

FInding this a better format, definitely.

[bobmazanec]

I suppose this discussion strictly meets the requirements/guidelines for merging…but I would really like more discussion & conclusion before either merging or changing (/closing?) it.

Anyone?

[jorgetinoco]

I've only have one of this onsites, but I think this is great. As Patrick said, we can see how much they push themselves and what good/bad decisions they make. As they have the basic project as homework, we can also see how interested in doing the interview they are IMHO.

[bobmazanec]

2 positive comments & 0 negatives in 48 days — no opposition, so this seems ready to merge.

I'll talk w/ the recruiters & coordinators about making the 2-part format the default, using the 4-hour, all-on-site when the candidate says they cannot and/or will not work on a project in advance.

[CeciSa]

From the recruitment perspective, I've noticed that the team usually gives stronger readings about candidates in the 2 part on-sites. I think we should let the 2-part as the "standard" format, unless the candidate is not available. Thanks Bob!

[oryws]

Hi guys

Personally, I like this on-site better than the normal one. My only worry is that the interviewers need to be really attentive on the presentation so that they can point out errors/bugs/possible improvements in what the candidate did. Apart from that, I think its the best option

[jorgetinoco]

@oryws well, in both onsite types we need to be really attentive, so in my opinion this is not an issue

[oryws]

You're absolutely right @jorgetinoco, so let's just go for it

[bobmazanec]

Conversation has died down again; no apparent opposition nor changes requested Merging