5 ms·
To me, the Kapor's are effectively claiming Uber has breached their trust. They also indicate they have been a "team player" during prior incidents: "As early
by colinsidoti 10y ago
To me, the Kapor's are effectively claiming Uber has breached their trust.
They also indicate they have been a "team player" during prior incidents:
"As early investors in Uber, starting in 2010, we have tried for years to work behind the scenes to exert a constructive influence on company culture. When Uber has come under public criticism, we have been available to make suggestions, and have been publicly supportive, in the hope that the leadership would take the necessary steps to make the changes needed to bring about real change."
So it's hard for me to fault them here.
For the sake of more thought provocation, what do you think about YC's "Founder Ethics" rules, and how would you want YC to respond if Uber were a YC company?
http://www.ycombinator.com/ethics/ http://www.ycombinator.com/ethics/
- kogir 10y agoOne notable difference with YC is that when they cut ties for ethical reasons, they do it privately, and dispose of their ownership. It's a particularly principled stance.
- andrewprock 10y agoIt's not obvious that quietly separating is the principled stance when dealing with ethical issues.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- oxryly1 10y agoDo you know of an example of that?
- rdl 10y agoMy only problem with the YC rules are that some of them are pretty open to interpretation, although I trust the people making the judgment to be both competent and fair. (the standard catch-all "Generally behaving in a professional and upstanding way.", etc.)