2 ms·
Not sure but I would think this treatment of "transparency" deals with recent trends among some closely-held startups to make gratuitous disclosure of their ins
by grellas 17y ago
Not sure but I would think this treatment of "transparency" deals with recent trends among some closely-held startups to make gratuitous disclosure of their inside financial information, as discussed in this thread having to do with a post entitled "Disclosing Your Finances: Should you publicly publish your finances?": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1034911 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1034911.
I have a detailed post in that thread about how such disclosures may expose directors to claims of breach of fiduciary duty, among other things, and how they are therefore not generally a good idea. The related piece to which the thread is attached contains the counter-arguments, as do other posts in that thread.
- ryanwaggoner 17y agoThat's part of what I was referring to, though not in response to those specific companies, but more with regard to the expectation that companies should do that, or that they're somehow more honest if they do.
- pvg 17y agoIt's conceivable although the post that started that thread is very specifically about the disclosure of financial detail and doesn't even mention the term 'transparency'. Neither does any of the resulting commentary on HN. At the same time the admittedly vague and woolly term 'business transparency' is commonly used to describe an approach to customer relations that's consistent with what the author terms 'translucency'.