3 ms·
Oh, I completely agree. He was naive and he has some responsibility for the issue but they were clearly dishonest while he was only naive. Even if there's resp
by nicolas_t 10y ago
Oh, I completely agree. He was naive and he has some responsibility for the issue but they were clearly dishonest while he was only naive.
Even if there's responsibility to be shared and good lessons to be learned by new developers reading this, it doesn't stop the fact that he was not the dishonest party in this.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoThat's a supposition made on very small evidence. They offered him employment with shares - one interpretation of the ambiguous offer. To suppose they meant anything more is pure conjecture.
- nicolas_t 10y agoWe do have the screenshot he provided of the facebook conversation which is pretty damning and very clear. Employment with equity != shareholder in any well used definition of the word shareholder. So, as long as we assume that the OP didn't falsify the Facebook screenshot, it's not small evidence.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoStill nothing concrete - to be called a 'shareholder' is not terribly meaningful, is it? Terms like "honorary co-founder" are meaningless. I don't hold them harmless - it was not right to let the ambiguity go on so long. But s/he was complicit in that.