The process for me was similar to what other people mentioned here. The whole process is laborious and tremendously long. The steps I passed were as follows: - CV Screening. - Written "interview". - Psychometric tests (Thomas GIA/PPA). - 25 min interview with an engineer from my team. This was mostly just a regular conversation to get to know the role and introduce myself. - 1h interview with an engineer from my team. There were both technical questions and behavioral questions. - 1h interview with an engineer from the OpenStack team. Mainly Linux and networking questions. - HR call to discuss benefits. - An open-ended take-home technical assessment. - 1h interview with an engineering manager. - 1h interview with a staff engineer from my team. During the entire process you get these automated pre-written emails about everything. They seem to have put some effort in to make them appear as realistic as possible. Since the interview process is overseen by engineers it is not much of a surprise they tried to automate everything, but in my opinion this masquerade is a bit insulting. They should get rid of the psychometric tests. It's bad enough you have to do the written interview before having spoken to a single real person, but then you have to also do these kinds of tests like you're a lab rat. The PPA also generates some "suggested questions" for them which the interviewers can ask, which aren't really helpful (and the interviewers didn't seem to feel so either). I get the point of the written interview as a means of providing some relevant information to all interviewers later on but it should be trimmed considerably. Also, it was quite obvious that not all interviewers had the same level of information about me. Some did read the submitted info beforehand, some hadn't and either skimmed through it while on the call or just asked their own questions. For example, for the technical assessment I submitted I was told in the engineering manager interview that they liked it but I would be given more in-depth feedback by the next interviewer, who then hadn't even looked at it at all. The way they score you is that each interviewer has to fill a form of radio buttons with scores 1-5 at the end of the interview. This is supposedly done to reduce bias but it introduces more bias in my opinion as every one of them can have a different way of rating the various aspects. During the process, it was never quite clear how many interviews were to be scheduled next, or how far in I actually was. After the 10 steps I listed above and a double-digit number of hours spent in the process there simply was a silence for 3 weeks and then I got a generic rejection email with no explanation at all. I tried to contact HR during this silence period but was simply ignored. In conclusion, if you really like the position I think you should try to interview for them as it seems a place with a lot of good engineers to exchange knowledge and work on cool open-source projects, but you should really keep in mind the tremendous level of involvement and time you will have to invest which can all just be washed away with a generic rejection email...