lyal

SEEKING FREELANCER - MoonlightWork.com is seeking talented freelance developers around the world. Set your own rates, work with amazing companies that value moonlighting.

I'm very excited to see this -- data portability and management is a primary struggle we're trying to map out. Would love to see an engineering post on what you did for ElasticSearch.

No.

Yes; we most definitely have teams from Fortune 500s running mission critical code through out platform. We will be releasing a case study from one in the next quarter.

I would say the difference on the reviewer side of our platform is in quality. We are working to surface this more.

Yes; unfortunately QA was used here, when QA doesn't capture what we do. Probably my fault in the interview.

Thanks much -- this is a company, product, and project where we have the liberty and passion to say that quality is what we care the most about.

Also: I'm lame, I went with "We're the Hotmail of Food Delivery." Still not sure how that deck worked out ;-) /s

Definitely a concern within the business -- we're trying to solve this through a combination of tooling and reassignment of reviewers to the same projects. Within tooling, we use analysis to pair developers with expertise against a project (if you've built a middleware stack in python ten times, it becomes easier to gain context and identify issues).

Totally true in places like mobile/react, or projects where teams are unlikely to have significant internal expertise despite technology in production (see a midsized game studio running an erlang server for chat) providing value is easy. We believe our approach is working, and will continue to get better.

(On a personal level -- huge fan of your work!)

Yes; one of the reasons I created the company was to give flexibility to people I've seen drop out of the industry for one reason or another (be it having kids, illness, etc). It's a real shame when life condition means that years of incredible experience go away.

We both internally and have customer rate reviews -- we also establish corpus details with customers during the onboarding process. On the whole, we believe it's valuable to stay within the structure established within a team and nudge things forward rather than making wholesale changes to disrupt.

Ah! Bot in this case is the label applied to any application within Github.

Disclosure: I'm Lyal Avery, founder of PullRequest.

On functional terms, we have a couple of thousand reviewers that have signed up to review. Our tooling helps them work faster; long term, we'll also provide this tooling to internal terms.

So far, we have about a dozen of the Fortune 500 signed up; larger teams, for a variety of reasons, are more open in some cases (one of the many learnings of this startup).

Edit: signed not signing.

As someone who works with a lot of 1099s, this definitely hits a need.

Are you storing/validating tax docs?

PullRequest | Engineering | Austin, TX | Full-Time | Onsite

PullRequest (YCombinator S17) is building the first platform for code review as a service.

We combine great backend tooling, a custom IDE, with teams of reviews to deliver first class code review. We’re hiring for engineers of all flavors to help us build our platform. We write mostly in python and javascript, but we’re running an agnostic stack.

We’re looking for amazing folks that care deeply about code quality. If that’s you, please reach out to lyal@pullrequest.com

Early stage equity + salary

The solution is fairly straight forward - create economic and package parity for Canadian entrepreneurs and workers.

It's hard for Canadian employers to pay similar wages to other countries for a variety of reasons. Most of them are completely self-inflicted: things like reliance on SRED to recoup salary costs (a program that's gotten increasingly hard to qualify for, but as a retroactive program, devastating when not won), priority selling into Canada as opposed to going global, etc.

The variability of the Canadian dollar is another huge factor. It shifts around; leading to boon and bust against the US for compensation. When I left Canada, it was at par, making $110k very competitive in the US nationally (if not in the valley). It's obviously not there now!

The funding/exit end of things is the other big challenge. A huge chunk of the "Valley Salaries" are RSUs from pubcos, options from startups, etc. It's a chicken and the egg scenario that would be familiar in any secondary market in the US; valuations are low, leading to low exit multiples, meaning that even founders who exit often don't get life changing returns, before we even get to employees. This means that options are discounted entirely in the compensation structure.. making people more reluctant to give them out. It's a bad circle.

Founder of PullRequest here: To be clear: $136,000, not $136mm. Typo on article.

We price based on the amount of review being done per month. $49 is the base threshold; individual reviews can vary based on the amount of code being reviewed at once. We're figuring out the exact pricing model for individuals and teams that'll be easily communicable.

Thanks for the insight. We'll definitely be clearing up the pricing packages.

We're trying out a few different models right now. Our goal is to make sure that developers are getting great pay and want to work with us!

We would love to offer one review a month - unfortunately, because there are humans on the other side of the review, it's harder to do this than for a straight SaaS operation.

We'll definitely have free tiers for our static and instrumentation product though.

We're still exploring the landscape on this. At the core, we're hiring reviewers in jurisdictions that we have presence for (currently North America), and they are signing a 3 way agreement with the company under review. This offers the same level of protection as a traditional consultant in terms of protections.

I think that's a natural place where our tooling will evolve to - a lot of things that aren't caught in an automated way, after being trained with real review, will. There's no replacement for the human component of review though, and we believe that by allowing reviewers repeated access to the project, that they will gain the context necessary.

Great catch! Thanks, replied on twitter - we're dog fooding our own product, so as a reviewer, you'll definitely see our code in the review queue.

Review offers flexiblity that other forms of contracting don't - there's no project management, client negotiation, etc.

I agree - interesting landscape to play in.

To clarify, our pricing page is probably too confusing for folks at this stage -- we aren't saying that we can provide unlimited reviews for $49. Rather, teams and individuals can expect costs to scale up from that baseline.

Yes; pricing starts at 49$ per month, but that would be for a single review.

Appreciate your view. I think for teams with strong code review practices, we make sense as extra eyes rather than full replacement.

Edit to expand:

We also believe that reviewers attached to projects will gain context quite rapidly. We had a reviewer catch an edge case bug for one of our teams that had gone unnoticed by internal review. Economic side of this would have been large... but was only possible through the context they gained in previous reviews.

Yes; because there is a human reviewing, we have to start at a pricepoint that makes sense. Saving time and lowering risk is worth getting really great reviewers - to do that, we need to pay them a great bid per review.

We offer a free review to companies interested in trying us out. Shoot me an email (lyal@ our domain name).

We have a few folks that have signed up for just this! I think it's a neat concept.

Thanks. Different people like different things - I absolutely love reviewing code. We're hoping that by letting people focus on what they love doing, teams everywhere will be happier and more productive.