This is actually really neat. I appreciate the fact that all the meetings are scheduled up front, there is no live coding where candidates can be nervous or anxious. I think it's also rare to see organizations being respectful of a candidate's time (as you mentioned, they have current jobs, families, etc.).

It does make me wonder of the actual time commitment expected from the candidate, however. Are you expecting the candidate to spend upwards of 8 hours on a coding project? In some ways, one could argue that you might be asking them to do "free" labor. Who owns the work that the candidate provided?

I understand the need to find the best candidate, but I also think being respectful of a candidate's time means not having them to go through extensive interviews (technical or not) that total more than a few hours. Sure, some folks don't work out - but that's a risk I think organizations have to be willing to take.

> One of the three candidates dropped out. They realized during the task that this isn’t their turf. That’s exactly how it should work. Saves both sides a lot of time and false expectations.

Or maybe they realized that the "interview" was a way for this startup to get free work without actually hiring anyone. Time was already wasted.

A bounty system however is a much better process than this.