Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I would give more credibility to the firsthand account (PG & Jessica) rather than speculations from a fired board member.



I think that the split seems amicable, but from a 10k view “we had a convo telling Sam he couldn’t do both at once” leading to him leaving rhymes with a firing. Sometimes this stuff can be amicable!


He had a choice to either go to work the next day or not as he preferred. That isn't a firing in the usual sense of the word. As described it is an amicable end to his time at YC that was agreed on by both parties.

If people really want to describe that as "fired" there is no stopping them. But it isn't. PG is more correct than that quadrant of the backseat managers.


Paul explicitly states they wanted him to stay.

Firing implies you want somebody gone.


Paul said they'd have "been fine" with Sam staying, which is different than wanting him to stay:

> For several years [Sam] was running both YC and OpenAI, but when OpenAI announced that it was going to have a for-profit subsidiary and that Sam was going to be the CEO, we (specifically Jessica) told him that if he was going to work full-time on OpenAI, we should find someone else to run YC, and he agreed. If he'd said that he was going to find someone else to be CEO of OpenAI so that he could focus 100% on YC, we'd have been fine with that too. We didn't want him to leave, just to choose one or the other.

It's interesting that YC had to raise the issue, rather than Sam saying to YC, "Hey, I've found this other thing I want to do full-time, can we start looking for my replacement?"


and a fired board member who didn't have anything to do with YC


Jessica and by extension PG are early investors in OpenAI.

So it's not like they are impartial parties either.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: