He did say it was something they could do in their off time, so they could still keep their old job while they worked on it, and they'd get paid for their time too. I think that's why it's 3-8 weeks, because some people have more time to work on it and some people less.
I don't think it's great necessarily, and certainly not great for everyone (some people really have very little free time outside of work, kids, and other responsibilities) but I also don't think that's bad. I actually wouldn't mind the side income from such an endeavor right now.
There is also the potential legal problem of people working under contracts that don't let them do side work, which is also a legitimate argument against this approach.
This. It's important for them to understand their biases. This has a bias towards individuals who either are already contractors, do not have a job, or have large amounts of "free" time that is not dedicated to other endeavors.
Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with this as long as they understand their bias. Sometimes it's more important to pass on potentially great hires in order to weed out bad hires.
For what it's worth, I would never do this. I'm not going to quit my current job to take this kind of risk. I also don't have "free" time. I have several time consuming hobbies / commitments outside of work that I'm not willing to break for 3-8 weeks.
I don't think it's great necessarily, and certainly not great for everyone (some people really have very little free time outside of work, kids, and other responsibilities) but I also don't think that's bad. I actually wouldn't mind the side income from such an endeavor right now.
There is also the potential legal problem of people working under contracts that don't let them do side work, which is also a legitimate argument against this approach.