
Founder Ethics - austenallred
http://blog.ycombinator.com/founder-ethics
======
mkempe
A code of ethics requires quite a bit more certainty and precision. As
written, this is rather vague. It sounds like someone could be somehow kicked
out of YC just because they're more or less disliked (who makes the decision?
how?).

The recommended behaviours are virtues, not values. Adherence to virtue is the
principled pursuit of given values (e.g. honesty -> true to facts, integrity
-> true to your beliefs and words, independence -> true to your own judgment).

Here are examples of fairly strong codes of ethics relevant to engineers:

\- IEEE [1]

\- ACM [2]

[1]
[http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html](http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html)

[2] [http://www.acm.org/about/se-code](http://www.acm.org/about/se-code)

~~~
lsc
the ethics of business are... way harder than the ethics of Engineering.

Engineers occasionally have conflicts of interest with their employers and
clients (e.g. when asked to build something clearly dangerous) but it's very,
very rare. And Engineers are almost never asked to conceal relevant
information from people they directly work with..

Business people face conflicts of interest with their customers and suppliers
every day.

In business? concealing relevant information is standard, in fact, you might
be failing in your duty to your shareholders if you reveal relevant
information to your customers or suppliers. But, you may be defrauding those
customers or suppliers if you don't reveal enough information.

This makes business ethics a lot more complex. Now, I agree that the YC ethics
as written are super vague and making them more clear would be very good. In
fact, I think YC has a chance to set a standard here. Considering how YC
explicitly asks for hustlers, and people who push the line, one could even
argue that they have a responsibility to make the line clear.

However, it is an extremely difficult thing to do. When a task is beyond your
means, is it better to put up a "better than nothing" attempt that doesn't
completely solve the problem, or to put up nothing at all? I don't know.

~~~
wpietri
I agree with you entirely on the trickiness of business ethics, but I'd be
very skeptical of anything that is more precise. If it's too long to keep in
one's head, it will be easily forgotten. And if it's complex enough to cover
everything in some detail, there will be a lot of opportunity for hole-
finding, rules-hacking, boundary-arguing, and confusion-sowing.

Contrast that with the simplicity, say, of the Golden Rule, or Rawls' Veil of
Ignorance [1], or the Eightfold Path [2]. Those are trickier to apply, because
you have to do the unpacking yourself. But they're also harder to fool
yourself and fool others with.

I think that's true generally, but especially so for YC. If they stick with
sufficiently broad principles and heuristics, then they can finish up with,
"... and if you aren't sure, ask." YC has a lot of high-touch mentorship, and
mentoring is one of the best way to deal with ethical questions. They also
have a strong interest in making sure YC startups behave reasonably well.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path)

~~~
lsc
>Contrast that with the simplicity, say, of the Golden Rule, or Rawls' Veil of
Ignorance [1], or the Eightfold Path [2]. Those are trickier to apply, because
you have to do the unpacking yourself. But they're also harder to fool
yourself and fool others with.

I think the golden rule is a perfect example of how overly-simplified rules,
well, just don't work very well. And yeah, it's easy to "fool yourself" or
justify whatever it is you want to do with the golden rule. It offers no more
guidance than the content-free "Don't be an asshole." The golden rule involves
a lot of assumptions that the other guy is, well, like you, or if you take the
"treat them how _they_ want to be treated" interpretation, then it takes a lot
of guessing as to what they want.

For me, leadership means taking responsibility for failures, distributing
credit for successes, and listening to the right people when it comes time to
make a decision, and taking responsibility, again, for the emotionally
difficult parts of that decision. Like firing people. You need to listen to
the other people on your team; unless you are a very small team, that should
be the largest part of the decision. But on an emotional level, those people
you are asking, and those people who are getting fired both need to feel like
you, the leader, are actually doing the firing.

For most people, though, that's not a leader, that's a wimp. For most people,
the primary characteristics of a leader are decisiveness, dominance and
charisma, things that I usually regard in a negative light.

~~~
wpietri
I agree with you entirely on leadership.

But I disagree entirely on the golden rule. I hear about people all the time
who justify some action with, "Well, it isn't illegal". Because with a legal
code as complex as the one in the US, it's easy to lose sight of "it's right".
Empathy, though, is a foundation of human moral reasoning, and the golden rule
points that out.

You can see this in kids all the time. There's the classic "but I didn't break
rule X" defense, wherein the kid hacks the rules. E.g., "You said not to
_touch_ him." But "How would you feel in that situation?" and "How do you
think they feel?" are much harder to hack. Even if the transgressor is able to
self-fool, the flaws are much more obvious to third parties. The apparent lack
of content of the golden rule is a benefit; the simplicity leaves less room to
hide.

~~~
lsc
I dono. Every time I've gotten fucked in business... I mean, really fucked, it
was by a person who was a really nice person. A really empathetic person.

I don't think "nice" and "empathetic" has as much to do with 'ethical' as you
think. From what I've seen? good businesspeople and good salespeople are
absolute masters of self-justification, and they really believe it in their
hearts.

To me? this is one of the ugliest parts of becoming a business person. Not
only are you doing something terrible to another human, but you are going on
like you are doing them a favor while you are doing it.

Human emotions are weird things. None of them conform to anything like a
logical system.

~~~
wpietri
That strikes me as sociopathy, not actual kindness. Or at the very least, such
an education in bullshit that they literally can no longer tell right from
wrong.

People like that are rarely constrained by rules, either, because they can
justify that just as well.

Also, I believe that ethics is mainly an elaboration of our moral sense, which
appears to be biologically rooted. For more, I recommend the work of de Waal,
and his TED talk is a great place to start:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_moral...](http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals)

~~~
lsc
>That strikes me as sociopathy, not actual kindness. Or at the very least,
such an education in bullshit that they literally can no longer tell right
from wrong.

No, it's more subtle than that.

Let's go back to my example of what makes business ethics so difficult. You
have two groups with mutually opposing interests; your shareholders and your
customers/suppliers. You have some responsibility to both groups, right? If
you just gut feel it, well, I mean, that's one way to go about it, sure, and
if you are far enough from the line, that's okay. But if you are pushing the
line, as pg advocates? Gut feeling it is probably a bad idea.

For example, more than once, I've almost gone out of business. Many years ago
I hit serious financial issues. I told all my VPS customers, and went through
a lot of effort to find my co-lo customers a new home.

This was absolutely the right thing to do for my customers, but it also
destroyed the company, when I could have made it

(I ended up re-launching the company very shortly thereafter, using money from
my contracting gigs. In fact, I think I had a few customers stick with me the
whole time.)

Now, if I had shareholders at the time, I mean, who were not me? From the
perspective of the shareholders, I was not acting in their interest. I should
have concealed the possibly impending shutdown, and just worked hard to
prevent the impending shutdown from occurring. I am pretty sure that if there
was money on the line and there were owners who weren't me, I would have
gotten sued for acting in what I think was the most ethical manner.

Do you see what I'm getting at? If we remove the ridiculous cases of stuffing
cash into your underpants and running, a reasonable person can argue both
sides of most business ethics questions. Your gut can argue both sides, too.

~~~
wpietri
You make it sound like a situation being ambiguous is bad. I disagree. I think
that's exactly the time for discussion, negotiation, collaboration, and
reflection. All of which are aided by things like the Golden Rule.

Note that I'm not talking about gut feel. What I'm contrasting is using
carefully elaborated, hard and fast rules vs applying simpler guidelines, like
the Golden Rule. If the hard-and-fast rules you pick are the US legal system,
for example, then the answer is simple: fuck the customers. Bankruptcy
protects you. You can dodge all of the complexity.

But if you say, "Hey, how would I want to be treated if I were in their
situation?" you have to think about the customers _and_ the shareholders.
Unlike rules, guidelines, principles, and heuristics all force you to engage
with the complexity. Fairly arguing both sides isn't bad; it's exactly what
you should be doing.

Two minor points: using retrospective knowledge is a mistake in judging
ethical choices. If at the time you thought you were going out of business,
then that's the ethical framework. And as far as getting sued by investors, it
varies by state, but generally managers have wide latitude to run the business
in the fashion they see fit. You have an obligation to keep investors
informed, but if they don't like what you're doing, they can replace you.

~~~
lsc
>You make it sound like a situation being ambiguous is bad. I disagree. I
think that's exactly the time for discussion, negotiation, collaboration, and
reflection.

The ethical conflicts I've used as examples are "I have information relevant
to all parties. If I tell everyone, one party will be damaged. If I tell no
one, the other party will be damaged."

Negotiation is... difficult, when you can't reveal what you are negotiating
about.

Reflecting on "who do I screw" is incredibly stressful and unpleasant.

------
mikeleeorg
The curious cat in me is wondering, "Did something in particular prompt this
post?"

~~~
sama
Nothing in particular. But as we grow, I think it's important we're clear
about our expectations. Because the amounts are small and we fund so many
companies, we don't do much diligence before investing. So occasionally we'll
fund someone bad.

We've had problems in the past, but only twice that I know of. We have now
funded more than 700 companies, so that seems remarkably low.

~~~
thinkcomp
Sam,

As a former Green Dot VP, you're no doubt familiar with the money transmission
legal problem
([http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=09000064...](http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=090000648156588b&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf)).
Do you think it is ethical for Y Combinator, its portfolio companies, or its
founders to violate state and federal laws simply because they're poorly
enforced? Is it ethical for those companies to quietly hire, as contractors or
employees, former regulators to "guide" them through the regulatory process?
What about overseas tax havens? Does Y Combinator have a policy on the ethics
of that issue?

Also, there were more than two Y Combinator portfolio companies named as
defendants in the federal lawsuit over money transmission
([http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/t6maunfo/california-
norther...](http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/t6maunfo/california-northern-
district-court/think-computer-corporation-v-dwolla-inc-et-al/)), so how are
you defining "problems?" Are federal lawsuits alleging unlawful and immoral
wrongdoing not "problematic?"

What about shell corporations? Does Y Combinator have any connection to
Payments Sub, Inc., the company that Airbnb's CFO formed after being sued to
obtain a money transmission license in California?

Regardless, wouldn't the most ethical thing to do in the face of a confusing
legal situation involve public lobbying for reform of the laws at issue,
rather than exploitation of the chaos? Why has Y Combinator consistently opted
for the latter, rather than the former?

Aaron

~~~
tlrobinson
Speaking of ethics, I think you mean:

"Also, there were more than two Y Combinator portfolio companies named as
defendants in _my_ federal lawsuit over money transmission"

~~~
thinkcomp
Hi Tom,

What's the ethical problem here exactly? I linked to the lawsuit docket, it's
clear that my company filed it, and it doesn't matter either way in the
context of my argument.

Furthermore, had I written "my" as you suggest, it would make it sound like
there is a potential ethical problem because I say so. But my point isn't that
there is a potential ethical problem because I say so. My point is that there
is a potential ethical problem when lawsuits in general start getting filed.

Aaron

~~~
tlrobinson
Anyone can file a lawsuit naming anyone they like. You are using the existence
of a lawsuit you filed as evidence in your argument. I would call that
"circular logic".

~~~
thinkcomp
Actually, no, that's not what I'm doing.

True, the lawsuit exists, and anyone can be named. But this particular lawsuit
is backed up with a few hundred pages of evidence. Feel free to read it--
that's why I linked to the docket, so that anyone can. No circular logic
involved.

Again, my point is that lawsuits are signaling mechanisms for ethical
problems.

~~~
declan
I also disagree. And I have no dog in this fight -- no affiliation with YC nor
Aaron/thinkcomp.

It is false and tendentious to claim that "lawsuits are signaling mechanisms
for ethical problems" \-- the law nowadays is sadly well-divorced from ethics.
Just look at some of Hollywood's inane copyright lawsuits with Silicon Valley
companies as defendants. Or the rise in software "patent" suits. Or Harvey
Silverglate's book Three Felonies a Day. Etc.

It would probably be true to say that lawsuits are signaling mechanisms for
business _success_. I once interviewed Cypress Semiconductor CEO TJ Rodgers
who pointed to the list of complaint cover pages on his office wall. There
were dozens. He said something to the effect of: Whenever we get sued, that
means that our competitors are unable to win in the marketplace. Bring it on!

If I'm not mistaken Aaron/thinkcomp is suing just about everyone who could
possibly be a defendant including Andreessen Horowitz, Coinbase, DST Global,
Dwolla, Kleiner Perkins, Slide co-founder Max Levchin, Reddit CEO Yishan Wong,
Sequoia Capital, Square, and Y Combinator. (If YC principals don't reply in
this thread, it's probably because of litigation.)

A uninvolved attorney, commenting on this case, wrote: "Unfortunately for
Aaron Greenspan, he has sued enough people to seem litigious at best—his own
word choice—and a little crazy at worst (that last word choice is mine)."
[http://blog.upcounsel.com/aaron-greenspan-versus-silicon-
val...](http://blog.upcounsel.com/aaron-greenspan-versus-silicon-valley/)
While I'm expressing no opinion about the merits of this suit, I do wish
Aaron/thinkcomp would do less lawyering and more, actual, you know,
engineering.

~~~
thinkcomp
I wish I were allowed to.

(Since 2011, I've built PlainSite from scratch, building on Aaron Swartz's
PACER data. But I'd rather be working on payments.)

Also, I'd expect a reporter as experienced as yourself to read the complaint
and evaluate the evidence on its own merits. There was a long list of
defendants in the recent litigation involving Google and Apple and Intuit and
eBay, because--guess what--they all broke the law.

I stand by my point that lawsuits are signaling mechanisms for potential
ethical problems. Not all of them are legit. Sometimes they're just crazy. But
by and large, they point to problems that need resolution.

Also, if you want to selectively quote things from articles, here's what Felix
Salmon at Reuters has to say about T.J. Rodgers: "Chrystia Freeland has found
a classic example of Silicon Valley hubris in TJ Rodgers."

[http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/06/01/silicon-
val...](http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/06/01/silicon-valley-
hubris-watch-tj-rodgers-edition/)

Regarding my legal battle with California, the Upcounsel article also said,
"He may be right, and it seems obvious that California’s MTA is much tougher
than comparable laws in other states," as well as "his complaint raises some
valid points."

~~~
pbreit
Civil suits should definitely not be considered signals of ethical problems.
This case is a perfect example where the law is vague, primarily exists to
protect some large incumbents and has been used to generate a lawsuit by a
legally active gadfly with tenuous standing.

~~~
thinkcomp
If there were standing issues in the case against California it would been
tossed out years ago.

In the unfair competition case, after trying and failing to get rid of the
case via bogus sanctions, Y Combinator and the other defendants manufactured
standing issues to get it thrown out by arguing that one cannot be the victim
of "unfair competition" if one is not legally permitted to compete (even when
the other parties are "competing" by breaking a law). This leads to the
perverse conclusion that § 17200 encourages illegal activity.

Most legal gadflies are not cited by opposing counsel in formal filings before
state agencies, invited to submit testimony to Congress, consulted by the GAO
on what to tell Congress, cited by academics, or offered fellowships at
Stanford Law School. But, you know, whatever.

------
mbesto
> _Not using misleading, illegal or dishonest sales tactics._

The grey area on this one is so big that I don't even know where to begin...

~~~
andrewtbham
yeh... airbnb is in violation. They illegally spammed people on craig's list.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/airbnb-harvested-
craigslist-t...](http://www.businessinsider.com/airbnb-harvested-craigslist-
to-grow-its-listings-says-competitor-2011-5)

~~~
maxcan
And, as much as I love them, their entire business is predicated on wholesale
violation of local ordinances restriction hotel and short term stay
operations. Those ordinances may themselves be corrupt and unethical but
they're still laws.

~~~
andrewtbham
Yeh... Tesla, Uber, airbnb all use illegal sales techniques. I miss PG's more
unvarnished advice.

~~~
rtpg
Tesla and Uber's defiance are for things that are pretty hard to justify.

As the multitude of airbnb horror stories show, anti-subletting rules and the
like are usually there for some pretty valid reasons, and it's in a different
category of illegal.

I, for one, am glad that my neighbour isn't inviting a bunch of strangers into
his house every other day.

~~~
rdl
Uber in general is violating "things which are hard to justify", but their
marketing tactics vs. competitors in NYC were unquestionably wrong, IMO.

------
mindcrime
Beyond just the ethics of the founders in these terms, I'm a big believe in
the idea that _the company_ taken as a whole, should have values and
principles, and that they should be communicated widely and clearly, and -
most importantly - they should _actually_ _really_ be adhered to...

IOW, don't write a "mission and values statement" because it's expected or for
marketing purposes. Write that stuff because you know what you want your firm
to stand for and represent, now and over the long term.

We did this back when we first started[1], and we recently had a situation
come up which tested our resolve, but knowing that we had written down what we
believe, and what we are trying to _be_ as a company made it a lot easier to
make the right decision.[2] Or, at least, what we find to be the right
decision for us.

Note that in our specific case, the decision in question is one that many
rational, well-reasoned people could disagree with. But we believe that our
principles dictate the decision we reached. We aren't saying people who may
have made a different decision would necessarily be wrong.

[1]:
[http://www.fogbeam.com/company.html](http://www.fogbeam.com/company.html)

[2]: [http://wraltechwire.com/why-a-triangle-tech-ceo-just-said-
no...](http://wraltechwire.com/why-a-triangle-tech-ceo-just-said-no-to-cia-
investment-/13607050/)

------
imkevinxu
> _We will stand behind you no matter how much your company struggles, as long
> as you behave ethically._

I think this can't be re-iterated enough. Most investors would probably just
write off a struggling company but YC stands by you

------
mful
> Keeping off-the-record or confidential information (whether about YC itself
> or a YC company) private and secret.

If I recall correctly, Paul Graham asks the Summer 2011 class not to share
tips on getting into YC at the end of Launch Pad. I wonder if this is in part
a response to all the recent YC Applications/interviews going public (or at
least showing up here on HN).

~~~
rdl
There are different kinds of tips. Some which I think actually help YC if
everyone knows them -- because YC wants to make the most accurate analysis
possible in a short interview, it helps if everyone knows to give clear,
direct, and succinct answers, be prepared to answer questions, don't depend on
being able to show a demo, etc.

The confidential information is more like Off The Record things during YC
dinners, information about other companies, etc. There is much more
information about other YC companies (especially batchmates), or speakers at
YC dinners, which is confidential than there is information about YC itself
which is confidential.

------
Frozenlock
> Keeping off-the-record or confidential information (whether about YC itself
> or a YC company) private and secret.

> Not behaving in a way that damages the reputation of his/her company or of
> YC.

This can turn 'unethical' pretty darn fast.

~~~
Bootvis
Ethics are hard. And the law should be an overriding concern in most
instances. I think more examples and more explicit guidelines would help the
founders judgment. I fear this could get real ugly when (not if) conflicts
arise and the punishment of revocation of founder status is strictly enforced.

------
steveklabnik
I'm really glad to see this. Kudos.

There have been one or two YC companies which have been a bit on the sketchy
side, I'm glad to see an actual statement about this kind of thing. I'm
thinking specifically of the "We bundle ads with software installers," I don't
remember what the company was.

~~~
minimaxir
That was InstallMonetizer:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711)

Speaking of which, that startup appears to be dead/zombie, so karma may be in
play.

~~~
TTPrograms
That was funded a year ago?

It seems like some early 2000s garbage-ware :\

------
001sky
"Keeping off-the-record or confidential information (whether about YC itself
or a YC company) private and secret."

VCs are very famous (as a class of investors) for not signing NDAs with anyone
except under exigent conditons. Confidentiality and its context-dependent
limitations should be adressed more formally if there is any concern here--by
both sides.

------
tptacek
I think you want "exclusively" where you have "uniquely".

------
natch
Some of the least defined words in here are:

\- Upstanding

\- Integrity

\- Respect

When I say defined, I mean defined by the document. I wonder what they mean in
the YC context.

As an example of why I wonder, I noticed that when YC shared a building with a
scrappy, extremely creative robotics company that made a virtual telepresence
robot, it surprisingly funded another company that competed with that neighbor
with what looked like a knock-off telepresence robot product. This product had
an admirably more clever / agile design in that it leveraged the buyer's
existing iPad.

The idea that they funded a competitor to their own neighbor is not
necessarily a judgement on YC. I frankly don't know enough about the companies
and products involved, which is why I couched my statement with "looked like."

It's more of a setup for my real question: where does YC stand with blatant
ripoffs, copying, wholesale lifting of ideas, products, business plans, from
other companies? Is that considered ethical? If yes, is there anything that's
not fair game? Are there any lines beyond which the copying becomes an act
that is disrespectful, is considered not upstanding behavior, or shows a lack
of integrity?

------
rajacombinator
You might want to add something about treating customers ethically, even when
not required by law. I think with some of the bitcoin companies out there,
there is increased potential for financial shenanigans that could negatively
impact YC's reputation. (Frontrunning, etc.)

------
jamielee
Enron's motto was "Respect, Integrity, Communication and Excellence." As we
all know... it wasn't enough. Read their Code of Ethics, too. It's so ironic.

Perhaps an essay about why ethics are important to the long-term success of a
start-up would be much more effective. Why not talk about the start-ups that
encountered ethical dilemmas, the thought-processes and the outcomes? That
would be super entertaining as well as enlightening. I love the essays by Paul
Graham. He inspired me to pursue what I love and to think about problems in
the world. To simply be told to do so would not be as motivating.

I think that as a technology start-up accelerator, there should be a greater
purpose that is communicated. . . like improving the world with technology.

------
harrystone
The business world needs more of these kinds of no bullshit, no footnotes, no
qualifier statements.

~~~
mkal_tsr
It's sad when trust, transparency, and honesty become differentiators instead
of expected.

~~~
sounds
You are quite right. But my posting history has led some to label me as
naive... I think it's closer to the truth to say:

Truth, Trust, and Transparency are always differentiators but the reality is
they are only subjectively quantifiable, and therefore a problem waiting to
happen if a majority of shareholders aren't exactly aligned.

Or, simply put, large companies generally are forced into an amoral "objective
and quantifiable" position. Thus it has ever been.

As a founder, I have more control over my company's culture, but I have no
illusions that I can set it in stone.

------
Zak
YC's generally good reputation has led me to take fewer steps to guarantee
prompt payment when doing contract work for companies they've funded than I
normally would with new clients. I'm happy to report that it has worked out
well so far.

------
yaelwrites
I'm so psyched to see this. It's incredibly heartening to see YC set a great
example because of their visibility and the amount of respect we all have for
them in the tech/startup community. As someone who's unsuccessfully worked on
getting codes implemented, I think this is absolutely huge and predict others
will do the right thing and follow suit.

I agree that this is pretty vague. I don't think the more nitty gritty details
(how to make an incident report, who's responsible for handling it, etc.) have
to be posted publicly, but hopefully the actual policy is being worked on
behind the scenes.

------
ejain
Nice, but as they say, actions speak louder than words.

------
tbrooks
How does this apply to AirBnB?

------
jacquesm
That's long overdue. Now that they're in place that sort of thing will
hopefully be a thing of the past, too many YC funded companies have been
visibly in breach of these at some point in time. Winning is fine but not by
any means possible.

------
general_failure
Kinda sad that we have to explicitly write down the obvious. Things like 'be
honest', 'say the truth', 'be polite', 'dont do illegal stuff' should all just
go without saying.

~~~
feralmoan
YC founders are predominantly 'young' so it could be chalked to general
mentorship.

------
capex
"All founders in a company may be held responsible for the unethical actions
of a single co-founder or a company employee, depending on the circumstances."

This sounds like a decree issued by the Russian government.

~~~
nperez
I can only assume this is to ensure that if an employee behaves unethically
without repercussions, YC can hold the founder responsible for inaction.

~~~
capex
Yeah I think this clause is about with-holding information about bad things
done by others in the team. But this seems to have been covered by other
points on the page. Something to be reworded.

------
mantrax5
In the spirit of being honest as requested, all of these are so vague and
context-sensitive, basically they amount to nothing.

You'll have to do a lot more work and be more specific than this generic
wishlist, if you want people to really abide by your understanding of ethics.

Oh and this one:

    
    
        - Keeping your word, including honoring handshake deals.
    

... is plain dangerous. Handshake deals are not deals. They're just a problem
about to happen. Someone's neurons keeping the memory of a "handshake deal"
will start misfiring.

Write it down. Even in an email after the meeting. If it's not written, it
didn't happen.

~~~
saalweachter
I would say it's worse than that. Writing it down won't even be enough in all
cases, because communication is a hard problem. It is very easy to come out of
a conversation believing you know what the other person said, or believing
that you accurately communicated your thoughts, desires, or plans and just be
completely wrong on all counts.

There is a reason lawyers write contracts: it reduces the likelihood of a
miscommunication about what each party expects.

------
michaelochurch
I'd like to add a few ethical principles pertaining to employee relationships.

    
    
        * Not misleading prospective employees using "bait and switch" tactics regarding 
          the position or nature of the work.
        * If an employee requests an introduction, grant it. 
        * Not behaving in a way that damages the reputation of an employee or ex-employee. 
        * Separating with fair severance relative to the means of the company (possibly 
          $0.00 and a good reference, pre-A; cash severance expected once rich).
        * Using open allocation if possible.
        * Not accumulating unreasonable technical debt.
        * Keeping the company engineer-driven as far as possible.

~~~
tptacek
Of this list, only item #1 involves ethics of any sort.

Someone on the Internet also wants The Joel Test added to the list of Founder
Ethics, but that doesn't make Hallway Usability Tests an ethical issue.

~~~
waterlesscloud
#4 seems an ethics question to me. Severance compensation should be done on a
fair basis relative to the resources the company has available.

~~~
tptacek
Severance is compensation. Compensation is a contracts issue, done at market
terms. His first point captures all the ethical concerns required to fairly
negotiate contracts. Near as I can tell, formal severance guarantees are also
rare, meaning that you're often negotiating for it against other candidates
who won't demand it.

Employees aren't intrinsically entitled to severance pay, as some sort of
natural law of business.

Another way to rebut the idea that severance is an ethical requirement is to
say that the same ethics would demand giving engineers raises, or paying them
the maximum amount the business can bear paying. That's sometimes true, but
often not, depending on the role of engineering in the company.

~~~
waterlesscloud
I take it more to be a point about the size of the severance compensation
relative to the company's resources. IE, don't claim poverty (and thus no
severance) when you've been funded. Basically a variation on "Don't lie to
your employees about money".

------
tsax
I await Social Justice Warrior attacks using this new weapon. It's bound to
happen. Let's fill every organization's charter with vague rules which can
then be exploited by power-hungry self-righteous pricks. Brilliant idea.

~~~
thenmar
What's a "Social Justice Warrior"?

~~~
ChrisNorstrom
A "Social Justice Warrior" is what happens when you take liberalism to an
extreme. When you take Conservatism to an extreme you end up with "Religious
Patriotic Fanatics" who desperately want to be their own group's hero at the
expense of other groups. While Social Justice Warriors desperately want to be
someone else's hero at their own group's expense.

Both are extremes, unhealthy, and start out with good intentions. Social
Justice Warriors often times fantasize about making bullying, name calling,
and stereotyping illegal. They can be found in high concentration at places
like Reddit, Vice, & Gawker Media sites constantly talking about
race/gender/class while ignoring statistics on race/gender/class. They demand
that you are politically correct in everything you say. Their favorite insults
are "you're racist" and "you're sexist". Basically "the thought police".

Example; When Paul Graham of Y-Combinator mentioned how strong foreign accents
can hinder a founder's ability to communicate with his team (which is common
sense) he was attacked by silicon valley news outlets for being anti-
immigrant, possibly racist, and xenophobic. When he later gave his opinion on
why there's so few women in tech he was again attacked and called sexist. This
is the problem with Social Justice Warriors, they are warriors, warriors are
willing to go to extremes to achieve hero status.

In moderation social justice isn't bad. Religion or patriotism isn't bad
either. Neither is conservatism or liberalism. But when taken to an extreme
these ideologies end up becoming illogical, irrational, and causing damage to
a society's expressive or civil freedoms.

