After a very brief recruiter phone screen (supposed to be about my background and the role), I had a 30 minute video call with the hiring manager. This was enjoyable. Next I had to complete a take-home exercise, which seemed very simple, perhaps almost excessively so. They gave me a week for this but it only took an evening. Afterward, I was told that they wanted to move to the final step in the process: a four-person interview series, all scheduled back to back, lasting at least three hours, with one 15-minute break after the first two interviews. (My second interviewer continued chatting past our scheduled time, and I couldn’t bring myself to wrap up our interview myself, so I had almost no actual break.) In the “which is more important in a technical writer: technical ability or writing ability?” debate, Confluent seems to land in the “technical” camp. I was told that I wasn’t “senior” enough. Two items that caught me off guard: • I was asked to define (on the spot, off the top of my head) a popular software development tool used by both developers and technical writers, which I use every day. In a prior job (years ago), I had written a summary of this very tool for inclusion in our product’s documentation. Asked for a definition on the spot, my mind went blank. If I were on the job, I expect that I would have time—as part of the job—to do some research and thinking to decide the best way to describe this tool (this is what I did when I *did* summarize it for a product doc set, at work). • Some tech writing roles are listed as “Security Writer”; this role was not, but I was asked about my knowledge of security anyway, and told that it was essential for anyone at the company (or perhaps the meaning was any writer at the company) to have a solid grasp of security concepts. The interviewer said I ought to be able to learn what I needed to know on the job, but that not having a security background, I’d lose the role to anyone else who came along and did. I realize that security is important, but having a title “Security Writer” and then expecting a prior background in security of any writer who applies, even for a generic Technical Writer role, confuses me. In summary: I wouldn’t recommend applying for a technical writer job here unless you already have such skills and experience that you could have applied for a software developer role.

After applying online, I received an invitation to interview with a recruiter. The scheduling process was easy and quick. The recruiter, however, was very short with me in the interview, which lasted about 10 minutes. It put me on edge, and she didn't give me a positive impression of the culture. She also acted like I didn't understand what Confluent does and that I "would be expected to understand Confluent technically" if I continued the process. Heads up: technical writers aren't developers, nor should they be. She also wouldn't discuss compensation. When I asked for a timeline for the role because I had several other opportunities, she said, "Until they find someone right." For all you technical writers out there, pass on this one. They want a developer, not a writer. No developer I've worked with would trade a developer's salary for technical writing. Happy unicorn hunting, Confluent.