3 ms·

> I was interviewed by three partners Who? They are people, right? I have a name, you have a name, the three partners must also have names. Who were they?

sushid 7y ago
He probably doesn’t want to share that level of detail. Why is this important?
- ronilan 7y ago
  Thanks for asking. The specific names of the three judging partners aren’t important (obviously) what is important though is that there is a tendency to provide those in position of power (generally, or in a given situation) with a layer of protection (by anonymity) that is not afforded to those whom they have power upon. The omission caught my eye. It reminded me that YC has this glaring asymmetry in other parts of the application process, specifically with the personal video they require people submit, but do not disclose who watched it. I thought that if I say something, someone might ask a followup question, and I can bring that point above in a followup comment. So again, thanks for asking ;) P.S - the downvotes on the comment are worth it, obviously.
  - com2kid 7y ago
    > The specific names of the three judging partners aren’t important (obviously) what is important though is that there is a tendency to provide those in position of power (generally, or in a given situation) with a layer of protection (by anonymity) that is not afforded to those whom they have power upon. If the author hadn't posted about this experience, no one at YC would've made a public post saying they interviewed him. Indeed, that would be a bit on the weird side if YC made a post saying "we spoke to someone from Checkly, his sense of humor was kinda funny."
    - ronilan 7y ago
      > Indeed, that would be a bit on the weird side if YC made a post saying "we spoke to someone from Checkly, his sense of humor was kinda funny." Weird is in the eye of the beholder. I personally would love to see publicly something like “Me and Paul (and/or Paul) reviewed Ron’s application in 2010 and decided not to invite him to an interview because of XYZ”. It’ll be entertaining. Edit: actually maybe it was in 2011. Damn, that was a long time ago.
      - Schoolmeister 7y ago
        Not sure if you meant it that way, but this comment comes across as very bitter.
        ronilan 7y ago
        Bitter times? For sure. Very. (Not because of YC though. It was already a mess, why would they want to touch it?) (BTW there was Can’t Wait at YC S11) [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2011/08/19/yc-backed-cant-wait-is-a-mobile-social-network-for-movie-trailers/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2011/08/19/yc-ba... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2905104 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2905104
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]

sushid 7y ago

He probably doesn’t want to share that level of detail. Why is this important?

ronilan 7y ago
Thanks for asking. The specific names of the three judging partners aren’t important (obviously) what is important though is that there is a tendency to provide those in position of power (generally, or in a given situation) with a layer of protection (by anonymity) that is not afforded to those whom they have power upon. The omission caught my eye. It reminded me that YC has this glaring asymmetry in other parts of the application process, specifically with the personal video they require people submit, but do not disclose who watched it. I thought that if I say something, someone might ask a followup question, and I can bring that point above in a followup comment. So again, thanks for asking ;) P.S - the downvotes on the comment are worth it, obviously.
- com2kid 7y ago
  > The specific names of the three judging partners aren’t important (obviously) what is important though is that there is a tendency to provide those in position of power (generally, or in a given situation) with a layer of protection (by anonymity) that is not afforded to those whom they have power upon. If the author hadn't posted about this experience, no one at YC would've made a public post saying they interviewed him. Indeed, that would be a bit on the weird side if YC made a post saying "we spoke to someone from Checkly, his sense of humor was kinda funny."
  - ronilan 7y ago
    > Indeed, that would be a bit on the weird side if YC made a post saying "we spoke to someone from Checkly, his sense of humor was kinda funny." Weird is in the eye of the beholder. I personally would love to see publicly something like “Me and Paul (and/or Paul) reviewed Ron’s application in 2010 and decided not to invite him to an interview because of XYZ”. It’ll be entertaining. Edit: actually maybe it was in 2011. Damn, that was a long time ago.
    - Schoolmeister 7y ago
      Not sure if you meant it that way, but this comment comes across as very bitter.
      - ronilan 7y ago
        Bitter times? For sure. Very. (Not because of YC though. It was already a mess, why would they want to touch it?) (BTW there was Can’t Wait at YC S11) [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2011/08/19/yc-backed-cant-wait-is-a-mobile-social-network-for-movie-trailers/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2011/08/19/yc-ba... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2905104 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2905104
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]