Qualifications
- Prior experience working on one or more of Android/AOSP-based operating systems, the Linux kernel and its hardening, memory allocators, or Android app development
- Strong programming skills in relevant languages (in order from most to least common: Java, Kotlin, C++, C, Rust, JavaScript, TypeScript, arm64 assembly, Bash, Python)
- Need to have enough experience to be comfortable to self direct workloads and submit finished features and fixes ready for review
- Commitment to privacy and security principles
- Ideally prior experience contributing to free and open source projects
Salary and remuneration will be commensurate with experience and aligned with industry standards. You will be employed as an independent contractor
“you will be employed as an independent contractor”
Dear (US) companies: this is not “employed”. This is commissioned or mandated, depending on the contract details.
Yeah that’s a deal breaker for me too. But the flexible and non-full time hours could make it an attractive side hustle or student job. Good luck getting anyone senior though.
No salary listed, they’re not getting anyone senior lmao
No normal student can do all that is listed.
well by employed they mean they don’t want to pay contracted rates but they also don’t want to pay for benefits. so employ pay and contractor benefits.
An independent contractor IS employed. They’re employed by themselves. Self-employed. So if you’re doing work for them, you are employed as an independent contractor doing work for them.
I think it’s pretty clear what they mean. Could have just said “you’ll be paid as a contractor and receive the relevant tax forms for your country” tho
They are employed by themselves. They are not employed AS anything else. You have it right just your conclusion is inconsistent.
It’s for me not about the wording of the last paragraph by the way but about the context and requirements list which makes the impression (to me) of offering an employee/employer relationship which is only broken up in the last line. That’s the part I really don’t like.
This kind of advertisement would be illegal in Germany btw as it would encourage pseudo self employment: someone self employed who is relying on one client only. (And no, not exaggerated: I’ve a legal department at least pull job description from the tech dept similar to this).
I don’t know if there’s really a better way to manage this need. They need a pretty niche specialized developer, so you have to cast a pretty wide net (globally, mind you) for remote work.
- It’s a pretty small global team.
- How would they financially/legally manage the burden of tax/benefit/workers rights across all boarders; especially as a non-profit.
Yes, people should know what they are getting into, with independent contractor work. I just think there is (probably) some nuance to this particular case; where hiring people on as an employee doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Heh I literally at the same time you posted answered to someone else that I think I er where I’m coming from.
Personally my issue is more with the framing (“looking for an employee”) than with the fact that they want/need a contractor.
I still wish them the best and would encourage everyone qualified to put their energy into a project like this rather than … Close to anything else!
It also sounds like they are trying to fill a part-time role. “Must be able to commit to spending 80 hours or more a month” = ~20 hours a week, but given the ebb and flow of release/bug/patch work needed…
Yeah, this is such an anti-labor thing for them to do. I hate seeing stuff like this in general, but from open-source projects it hurts way more.
I get where you’re coming from. I highly respect this project for its privacy push and it’s sadly a good example of “not all issues have the same priority”.
I honestly can see them just not being able to handle the business risk of a full employee would bring or several other reasons why it’s “okay” from their perspective. I now basically have to choose between two subjects that I find important.
For me I came to the conclusion that I still wish them the best - I can’t hold them to a standard ass high as the corporate world personally, let alone one higher.
It’s not like I’m going to boycott them, but it’s important to always push because they CAN do better. Any “risk” that they are not handling, they are offloading to the workers themselves. It doesn’t just disappear. I’m not saying they should be only hiring full-time devs at competitive silicon valley salaries, but part time on a living wage with worker protections is an important bar to clear for all entities that seek paid labor.
Salary and remuneration will be commensurate with experience and aligned with industry standards
Neat, this might violate California law!
The law states that any employer with “15 or more employees” must include “the pay scale for a position in any job posting.”
At least 1 of those 15 employees “must be currently located in California,” according to the Department of Industrial Relations website. And, for the companies this applies to, a job posting must have a pay range “if the position may ever be filled in California, either in-person or remotely.”
FUD
- GrapheneOS is a non-profit out of Canada.
- It’s an “independent contractor” role. California has specific laws governing the classification of workers as employees versus independent contractors.
FUD
What is this, a crypto forum? You make it sound like they’re trying to single-handedly tear down GrapheneOS or something.
-
doesn’t matter as long as they have employees in California
-
doesn’t state it must be for employees only, it’s for any job posting
Tech workers try to have any spine when it comes to worker’s rights challenge
Let me do the work for you; since you’d rather just spread FUD then look for facts.
- 0 California “employees” listed
- https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/SB3_FAQ.htm (I just want to point out that there is a distinction; and I am not a lawyer) “Any individual performing any kind of compensable work for the employer who is not a bona fide independent contractor would be considered and counted as an employee, including salaried executives, part-time workers, minors, and new hires.”
-
Cool, that’s why my original comment says might. I don’t keep track of where random organizations employ people.
-
You linked to a page about minimum wage, not the law related to job postings. Again, this law does not state that the posting must be for employee positions.
Any criticism you don’t like hearing isn’t FUD. This would be a shit practice even if it wasn’t illegal in California.
It isn’t criticism if it isn’t based on fact. The U in FUD stands for Uncertainty; and what do you think “might” falls under, or it’s relation to sowing Doubt?
The law related to job postings, is a labor law, that also covers minimum wage, and uses the same definitions. Labor Code Section 432.3 (Pay Transparency Law) Labor Code Section 1197.5 - California Equal Pay Act (Fair Pay Act) Labor Code Section 2750.3 (Employee vs Independent Contractor Classification)
-
-
I will once they actually support more than googles shitty devices. I dont care about the supposed hardware features that nobody else supports. I know they are already making plans for other devices, but until that is actually a reality, Graphene is useless to me.
You could be part of them supporting more devices.
Their problem isn’t capacity to support, but “Wahhh wahhh, other devices aren’t 100% as secure, wahhh, there’s that one very specific security feature missing that only google has and we totally need that waaaa” according to 90% of their public communication.
