The title only so matters to the extent the company is a known entity.

The "staff engineer" at some random series B startup 4 years into their career nearly always gets hired in at mid level somewhere like Meta.

> get a lot of junk applications, but frankly, it is your job to sort through them.

But this isn't their job. Their job is to hire someone who passes the hiring bar. If they can do that without ever looking at a random resume everyone at the company is happy.

An unstated thesis of the article is that several years from now people who want to accomplish that job just won't look at resumes submitted online - whatever anyone's feelings about it.

I think the press release is actually clear that they felt this was necessary to retain talent:

> Engineers in particular have expressed their desire to focus their time on engineering, without being hampered by slow process flows

I'm guessing ASML had a lot of regrettable attrition and heard this in the exit interviews.

By "dishonest" I'm saying they become measurements of time, which is what we were trying to avoid.

Stepping back - my experience is that points are solving a problem good organizations don't have.

The practice I see work well is that a senior person comes up with a high level plan fror a project with confidence intervals on timeline and quality and has it sanity checked by peers. Stakeholders understand the timeline and scope to be an evolving conversation that we iterate on week-by-week. Our rough estimates are enough to see when the project is truly off-track and we can have a discussion about timelines and resourcing.

I just don't see what points do for me other than attempt to "measure velocity". In principle there's a metric that's useful for upper management, but the moment they treat it as a target engineers juice their numbers.

> The process is quite easy to implement

Having implemented it myself, I agree it is easy to implement. My argument is that it is overly difficult to maintain. My experience is that incentives to corrupt the point system are too high for organizations to resist.

Funnily enough - I work closely with a former director of engineering at Atlassian (the company whose guide you cite) and he is of the opinion that pointing had become "utterly dishonest and a complete waste of time". I respect that opinion.

If you have citations on pointing being effective I'd be very interested. I consider myself reasonably up to date on SWE productivity literature and am not aware of any evidence to that point - I have yet to see it.