Maybe I misunderstand the format of HN job posts, but your website seems to imply that you're only remote for right now and anyone outside of Los Angeles would have to relocate.

We are remote for now. We will encourage folks to relocate in the future, though there may be exceptions for certain individuals.

As the tech director and hiring manager for these roles, my sense is this:

If you're qualified, I want to chat. Yes, we would prefer folks to eventually end up in Los Angeles, but whether that happens will be on a more case-by-case basis. To be really honest, it depends on the role and seniority of the individual. Some roles are more collaborative and we'd really prefer those to eventually be in the office. Others less so. And overall experience makes a difference too. The more experience someone has, the more likely we can make remote work. And to be fair, our policy is evolving, so not everything on our website may be up to date.

If we talk, we can have a candid discussion about what that could mean for each candidate.

Thanks for your clarification.

Unfortunately, I still feel a case-by-case approach leaves too much uncertainty and risk for the employer & candidate. And I'm not speaking to only you - your job post/comment just happens to exemplify a huge challenge facing countless companies during Covid!

So, for example: what would your hiring decision be if you interview the perfect candidate...who will 100% not relocate to LA?

I think their answer was fair.

From my perspective, in their shoes.. it wouldn't just be seniority/skill/desire to hire. I'd also try to gauge the person in question.

An example...

For years I've done, and supported, remote. One of my clients had an issue with an employee working remote. They simply wanted raw info on what was happening, why this employee had 'degraded' performance wise.

So during a normal maintenance trip.. they asked me to keep my eyes open. I did, and things were immediately clear. The 'remote work' space of this employee, was strewn with toys, had a crib in it, and while we were in our meeting, had 10+ interruptions from spouse, mother-in-law, and kids.

In other words, how do you get any real work done, when you're literally watching the kids, and pestered every 5 minutes? Bear in mind, this level of interruption was happening when we were in a meeting. Imagine the scenario, when no one was visiting?

One of the most essential things in making remote "work", is an understanding by others in the remote location. Just because you can see a person, does not mean they are available to be talked to, or to do chores, or 'watch the kids'... especially pre-schoolers.

So why all the above blather?

Well, I'd suspect they'd be trying to figure out what one's short term (during covid) and long term remote work environment would be like.

If you have a segregated, separate work space at home, if your SO and kids know to "leave you alone!" when at "work", if you don't think working from home means "I can help out at home, while working"...

Well, then I'd probably be OK with more perm remote work.

That's just my 2 cents, and probably why there are no specifics. Variability like this, is what makes you hire an employee, or not.

Well said. :-)