
Aaron Swartz explains why he left reddit - Sam_Odio
http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2007-05-07-n78.html
======
Sam_Odio
From Aaron's blog:

 _I say a bunch of things in the interview that are probably going to upset
various people I know. In my defense, it was an interview -- I didn't rehearse
my remarks in advance_

I'm guessing two of those people are the founders of reddit. I don't think
they saw things from quite the same perspective.

Edit: there's more discussion about this on reddit -
<http://reddit.com/info/1octb/comments>

------
immad
Sounds like an amazing guy and the interview is really interesting.

I dont know the full story but I dont think anyone else here does either,
apart from the people involved.

------
schoudha
Was Aaron Swartz a founder of Reddit? I thought he joined Steve and Alexis
after Infogami didn't work out.

Either way, he's a great hacker and that was great candid interview.

~~~
Sam_Odio
He was not a founder. When the infogami team didn't work out, Aaron, Steve, &
Alexis "merged" inforgami w/ reddit, creating a new company - not a bug. They
all got an equal share of equity in this new company. I think that's what
several people find aggravating. Aaron got a huge amount of reddit's equity,
but only put in a few month's worth of work into the site.

The lesson - always vest your equity. Not only for new hires, but also set up
vesting schedules for the founders. This ensures everyone can make a fair
exit, with no hard feelings.

EDIT: To clarify, by "not a founder" - I was answering the question, "was he a
founder of reddit?" He did, of course, co-found not a bug. Here's their
website, for the curious: <http://notabug.com/> \- I believe it's now defunct.

EDIT 2: There's also a pretty good thread on reddit that explains the
background: <http://reddit.com/info/1octb/comments/c1odac> (for those of you
who don't know, spez is Steve's alias).

~~~
bootload
_'... I think that's what several people find aggravating. Aaron got a huge
amount of reddit's equity, but only put in a few month's worth of work into
the site. ...'_

equity, worth and time working are all mixed up if you are a founder. The
original idea, the re-write, the bug fixing and all the crappy small things
right up to the final sale mean at any one time each founder _out-contributed_
one another at some stage. It's the final result that counts the most. If he
wasn't pulling his weight I'm pretty sure the others would have kicked up a
stink and given him the boot.

 _'... always vest your equity. Not only for new hires, but also set up
vesting schedules for the founders. This ensures everyone can make a fair
exit, with no hard feelings. ...'_

This I would agree with. Things don't always go to plan though and people may
not like their new role, being told what to do, when. You know the drill. To
me the biggest mistake by Naste` is assuming just because you buy a company
out that all founders are equally as flexible.

The biggest impression I get with Aaron is people look at him, they see a kid
and skip the ability, intelligence, achievement and ideas bit.

_"Heh" I joked. "I bet the first time my boss finds out where I am is when he
sees my photo on the front page of his own website (Wired)"_

I cracked up reading this line because of the irony of it.

~~~
Sam_Odio
_It's the final result that counts the most. If he wasn't pulling his weight
I'm pretty sure the others would have kicked up a stink and given him the
boot._

I actually talked with Steve about this exact topic a few months ago. The
point he made was, in general, if you give a partner all the equity up front,
kicking him out later doesn't make sense. Even if he's extremely unproductive,
your only choice is to try to work things out.

Otherwise, he's just walking away with a huge chunk of the company.

~~~
bootload
_'... Paul wanted to give Aaron Swartz, another YC founder, a birthday gift in
November. More than anything else, Aaron wanted co-founder so Paul suggested
the 'merger'. Merger is probably a bit hyperbolic for what actually happened,
Aaron basically moved in with us and we made him a co-founder. ...'_

They didn't push hard enough. This would have been the chance to negotiate ~
"What were some of the most flexible decisions you made?",
<http://tinyurl.com/39yobc>

~~~
ecuzzillo
It must have seemed like a reasonable decision at the time; nobody had been
nearly as badly burned by Aaron at that point as they have been since. If this
reputed eccentric whiz kid hacker who wrote your web framework wants to join
your startup, it doesn't occur to you that he might not produce and that
therefore you should mess with the equity terms. I'd say that you shouldn't
blame the people who made that reasonable of a decision for what happened
since.

~~~
bootload
_'... It must have seemed like a reasonable decision at the time; nobody had
been nearly as badly burned by Aaron at that point as they have been since. If
this reputed eccentric whiz kid hacker who wrote your web framework wants to
join your startup ...'_

I don't think I meant to say there would be a problem in taking on a new
founder. The fact is someone joining at later time is more vulnerable and
therefore you have a greater leverage. Joining later in terms of negotiating
is a weakness that could have been exploited.

 _'... I'd say that you shouldn't blame the people who made that reasonable of
a decision for what happened since. ...'_

It's not blame, simply 20/20 hindsight. I say the founders in this case have
done an exceptional job executing especially with this their first business.
I'm just making an observation.

~~~
ecuzzillo
If you are taking him on as a cofounder, you obviously think he is very high-
powered and will do lots of amazing things. Therefore, being a non-bankrupt
non-scumbag, you don't particularly try to screw him on the terms of the deal.

------
jpedrosa
I am reminded of how the folks who do most of the work almost never are the
ones who appear the most (speak, write, show up)...

Speaking of which... :-)

~~~
rokhayakebe
Dude. relax.

------
Goladus
Here's a blog post from november:

<http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/officespace>

------
rokhayakebe
There is clearly something personal going here. Let's all remember there are
too many IP addresses. People will speak freely, anyone who is trying to go
against is still living in the 60s

------
rokhayakebe
Whether he was a founder or not, you can tell the Man is highly intelligent
and would add to any team. He is a three edged sword. Philosophy, Coding and
most importantly social skills.

~~~
lupin_sansei
He might be good with computers, but he sounds like your classic late teenage
activist (not so clever):

"So you think its partly also about creating a male-only business network?

Im not sure its anything so intentional, but it definitely has that effect.
If you look at the top levels of any industry, you find just incredible levels
of misogyny.

For one example we have good data on, the FBI taped the executives of a major
US agribusiness company, ADM. And so we have, on tape, some of the incredibly
offensive things these guys said. Theres no reason to believe other firms are
any different."

~~~
rokhayakebe
dude. This is exactly the problem. When someone thinks differently, they
become quickly part of the other group. This is 2007. Every single one of us
is supposed to be an activist on his own. As long as you are not taking away
from others it is fine. Make your point, Defend your point. If 5 people in
room always agree, then clearly that room is clearly not filled with
intelligent people.

~~~
russ
I don't see the connection you're trying to draw in your last sentence. If 5
(edit: X) people in a room always agree, it says nothing about their
intelligence.

~~~
rokhayakebe
Well Russ. The point is not the number.It's like saying your startup has only
2% chances of succeeding. It is just to say something the majority. In my case
what I am saying is that not every one has the same opinion. And that is
exactly what makes the Internet powerful. If we all wanted the same opinion we
would read USA Today, but no we come here and find people who think completely
differently from others. But the best thing is that within that group, they
still think differently from one person to the other. Again, if they are 5
people in a room and they always have the same ideas and principles, They are
never going to learn from each other.

