![docker and kubernetes resume docker and kubernetes resume](https://www.hireitpeople.com/images/cards/resumes/146329.jpg)
Our team decided 100% who to hire and not. Maybe have experienced different approaches, but where I've worked, the hiring manager told HR what skillset they needed and HR would fire over resumes for the team to look at and decide who to bring in. The hiring manager can afford to spend an hour a day looking through resumes and giving good ones back to HR to recruit. The bulk of the HR person's time should be on other tasks: personnel issues with existing employees, helping new employees get situated, maybe interpersonal issues, etc. The only thing HR should be doing is helping hiring managers find the people they need, and otherwise staying out of the way.
![docker and kubernetes resume docker and kubernetes resume](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f4/52/b8/f452b81a87d38353dc3cc16830b8d0c1.jpg)
It seems to me that the reason it's so bad is because, at many companies, HR people refuse to admit that they're incompetent at hiring technical people, and insist on inserting themselves into the process to a degree which is highly counterproductive. >If we could find a better way, we'd be using it. At best, have the hiring manager give some very basic things to look for on resumes to the HR person, so they can screen out the people who are obvious wastes of time. Why would you let some non-technical person decide who's qualified to be interviews? It makes no sense. He knows what kind of person he's looking for, so let him make decisions. The solution seems pretty simple to me: get rid of the HR and recruiters, at least as having much power in deciding who to interview.
![docker and kubernetes resume docker and kubernetes resume](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9f/96/02/9f96021df5f5a161fe91d12c36b4f2b3.jpg)
Many people having the same problem domain to solve is how standards come to exist. the time to learn bespoke solutions to do the same thing). The frameworks and toolchains listed are standards that allow someone who has solved that common business use-case at one organization to solve that use-case at another org with minimal spin-up time (vs. "Our previous sysadmin's solution built with hair-pulling and rage before they quit to embrace the life of the humble riverboat captain" follow the same pattern. If you use Docker, you get to claim that you're familiar with a framework atop a lower-level abstraction, and the lower-level abstraction is flexible to the point of incomprehensibility few people enjoy maintaining someone else's bespoke shell script environment, and there's not much of a forcing function to cause standards to exist in that abstraction layer for doing a specific task (creating and managing deployable artifacts). It's a bit more than that there's a reason the next job cares that Docker, React, or Kubernetes are on your résumé. It doesn't mean I should use one to get my groceries. Many of these made perfect sense for the FAANG company they were developed for, but they are used at companies with 0.01% of the number of servers of those companies, and the basic reason is that both devs and managers want to pretend they are working at FAANG, so that someday they will work there.Īgain, there are valid use cases for all of these, but there are also valid use cases for semi tractor trailers.
![docker and kubernetes resume docker and kubernetes resume](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a5/3e/d3/a53ed370f982255f1741fe28ed9cec0f.png)
But, he also wants to be able to put on his resume that he managed developers who used these things, so that's an easy task. Of course, I would have to convince my boss to let me do all of these. If I use AWS, I get to put that on my resume, if I just spin up a Linux instance using Linode or etc, I don't If I use Kubernetes, I get to put "Kubernetes" on my resume. If I use React, I get to put "React" on my resume if I use vanilla JS I don't. If I use Docker, I get to put "Docker" on my resume for the next job if I use bash scripts I don't.