3 ms·

I don't see any issue with that. They get their gratification and the employees get paid for providing their work as a service.

klelatti 5y ago
It wasn't meant to be criticism. However, losing 1/3 of your staff overnight over an issue like this does somewhat undermine the JF / DHH narrative of extreme managerial competence.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  counterpoint - maybe the significance of not undermining the other 2/3 of the company is exactly extreme managerial competence when the crisis has already made itself clear.
  - klelatti 5y ago
    If you're saying that limiting their losses to _only_ 1/3 of their staff is a sign of great managerial flair then I'm afraid that I disagree very strongly.
    - LegitShady 5y ago
      It's like cutting off a limb with gangrene. The mistakes they made to get to this situation have been recognized, and now the next decision is how to make sure you continue to live, unpoisoned.
      - klelatti 5y ago
        You do know that the staff cut Basecamp out of their lives not the other way round? Not sure that comparing 15 or so talented and apparently hard working staff to gangrene is really the most appropriate comparison.
        LegitShady 5y ago
        when you 'accept a buyout' that means a buyout was offered. Basecamp was looking to get rid of them.
        klelatti 5y ago
        > Hansson told me that the rules are not draconian — no one is going to be bounced out the door for occasionally straying out of bounds. The founders’ goal is to reset the culture and focus on making products, he said, not to purge political partisans from the workforce. "..looking to get rid of them". Hmmm.
        LegitShady 5y ago
        You're looking at the press release and not reading what they're saying. 1/3rd of their company couldn't live with only 'occasionally straying out of bounds' and wanted to make everything political such that 'straying out of bounds' was the norm, so they got 'offered a buy out'. what the sentence you quoted is saying is that its not based on political viewpoints, but based on behaviour, 1/3 of the company would not accept only occasionally being out of bounds enough to stick around. those 1/3 were likely undermining the actual effectiveness of the company for their political causes.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        klelatti 5y ago
        As I said above. > Remarkable how when 1/3 of the company resigns in one go - many of whom have great and longstanding professional reputations with no history of political activism and including head of marketing, design, customer support, iOS etc. - following fundamental changes they read about in a blog post, it's because _they_ were all intolerable, proselytizing activists who all had to go for the good of the company. > Absolutely nothing to do with the two leaders who spend a good chunk of time on social media telling the rest of the world how to run their business in the most in your face way possible.
ljm 5y ago
I don't see an issue per se, but it makes it clear that they've got the money to live outside of the sphere of politics and society that their employees exist within. They can afford to make it a non-issue for themselves. And so they have. An empathetic option was available to them (own up to the stupid silly names list) but they cast it aside. As a consequence, they've lost a lot of respect both in their workforce and in the court of public opinion. I don't intend to put much stock in whatever else they have to say now. And for me it's not about the politics at work bit. It's the rest of it that is getting less attention. Cringeworthy Huxley quotes, paternalistic benefits, etc. etc.
tilolebo 5y ago
Then you are for sure not familiar with the way Basecamp has been advertising itself as a company for the past decade.

klelatti 5y ago

It wasn't meant to be criticism. However, losing 1/3 of your staff overnight over an issue like this does somewhat undermine the JF / DHH narrative of extreme managerial competence.

LegitShady 5y ago
counterpoint - maybe the significance of not undermining the other 2/3 of the company is exactly extreme managerial competence when the crisis has already made itself clear.
- klelatti 5y ago
  If you're saying that limiting their losses to _only_ 1/3 of their staff is a sign of great managerial flair then I'm afraid that I disagree very strongly.
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    It's like cutting off a limb with gangrene. The mistakes they made to get to this situation have been recognized, and now the next decision is how to make sure you continue to live, unpoisoned.
    - klelatti 5y ago
      You do know that the staff cut Basecamp out of their lives not the other way round? Not sure that comparing 15 or so talented and apparently hard working staff to gangrene is really the most appropriate comparison.
      - LegitShady 5y ago
        when you 'accept a buyout' that means a buyout was offered. Basecamp was looking to get rid of them.
        klelatti 5y ago
        > Hansson told me that the rules are not draconian — no one is going to be bounced out the door for occasionally straying out of bounds. The founders’ goal is to reset the culture and focus on making products, he said, not to purge political partisans from the workforce. "..looking to get rid of them". Hmmm.
        LegitShady 5y ago
        You're looking at the press release and not reading what they're saying. 1/3rd of their company couldn't live with only 'occasionally straying out of bounds' and wanted to make everything political such that 'straying out of bounds' was the norm, so they got 'offered a buy out'. what the sentence you quoted is saying is that its not based on political viewpoints, but based on behaviour, 1/3 of the company would not accept only occasionally being out of bounds enough to stick around. those 1/3 were likely undermining the actual effectiveness of the company for their political causes.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        klelatti 5y ago
        As I said above. > Remarkable how when 1/3 of the company resigns in one go - many of whom have great and longstanding professional reputations with no history of political activism and including head of marketing, design, customer support, iOS etc. - following fundamental changes they read about in a blog post, it's because _they_ were all intolerable, proselytizing activists who all had to go for the good of the company. > Absolutely nothing to do with the two leaders who spend a good chunk of time on social media telling the rest of the world how to run their business in the most in your face way possible.

ljm 5y ago

I don't see an issue per se, but it makes it clear that they've got the money to live outside of the sphere of politics and society that their employees exist within. They can afford to make it a non-issue for themselves. And so they have. An empathetic option was available to them (own up to the stupid silly names list) but they cast it aside. As a consequence, they've lost a lot of respect both in their workforce and in the court of public opinion. I don't intend to put much stock in whatever else they have to say now. And for me it's not about the politics at work bit. It's the rest of it that is getting less attention. Cringeworthy Huxley quotes, paternalistic benefits, etc. etc.

tilolebo 5y ago

Then you are for sure not familiar with the way Basecamp has been advertising itself as a company for the past decade.