3 ms·

The other side of the story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45266332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45266332

by nomdep 1y ago

raverbashing 1y ago
Honestly, it seems some very technically minded people are very naive and very unprepared in regards to practical and legal aspects of life elsewhere. While building a career over such a project like KDE is certainly laudable it seems it leaves people in a very precarious position where the number of companies worldwide where you can be employed at any given time can be counted with the fingers in one hand, with some to spare
- sho_hn 1y ago
  > While building a career over such a project like KDE is certainly laudable it seems it leaves people in a very precarious position where the number of companies worldwide where you can be employed at any given time can be counted with the fingers in one hand, with some to spare Your average KDE contributor is an expert in at least two widely used technologies, C++ and Qt, and typically in several more. Purely KDE-related work may not be a huge employment market, but trust me it's not that hard for KDE folks to find work in general, and you will find them in many high places. That is to say that contributing is definitely not putting you into any precarious career positions :-)
  - raverbashing 1y ago
    Agreed from the technical point of view But it seems most members of the community keep looking for jobs within the community and forget to look elsewhere
billyjobob 1y ago
Doesn’t sound like we have the full story from either side. This blog post from Nate reads like he is continuing to gaslight. But then Jonathan doesn’t explain why he didn’t just buy into the partnership like the other 2 did if he wanted to be a co-owner.
- uncircle 1y ago
  If you don’t have the full story, how are you saying one side is gaslighting? Stop throwing around accusatory words.
- toyg 1y ago
  Probably because he didn't have the capital. He's been doing KDE work for ages behind the scenes, but I don't think that made him much money. He hints at the fact that his professional condition hampered his attempt to keep his adopted kids with him, which would indicate he's not particularly wealthy.
jkaplowitz 1y ago
Thanks for sharing that. Nate’s article links to a comment in which he says the US has no legal cooperative structure “except for limited state-specific exceptions”. I don’t know why those state-specific laws for cooperatives don’t count - they aren’t in any way restricted to operating within the organizing state. I am a member/owner of a grocery store organized under NY’s cooperative corporation law, and they definitely do business with out of state suppliers. But that organization operates on a one person, one vote model, not a one dollar, one vote model. He seems to want one person to put in a disproportionate amount of investment capital and end up with a disproportionate amount of voting authority. That’s not the kind of “cooperative socialist” model which Jonathan was advocating, it’s a standard capitalist one. And I’m not saying that he has no right in the way the world works now to operate as a capitalist. He does. But he shouldn’t be surprised if someone who wants a cooperative model doesn’t view that as even aspirationally qualifying and isn’t satisfied by vague comments about how workers can gradually buy their way toward an approximation of equal power.
- Saaster 1y ago
  Your framing seems somehow backwards. Based on the other article[0] Nate and David bought out the business from Blue Systems. Jonathan (previously employed by Blue) proposes a co-op model, the new owners say “no thanks, we’re good”. Jonathan is surprised at this, storms out, detonating all the bridges on the way. [0] https://pointieststick.com/2025/03/10/personal-and-professional-updates-announcing-techpaladin-software/ https://pointieststick.com/2025/03/10/personal-and-professio...
  - jkaplowitz 1y ago
    My framing seems backwards because I’m commenting on what Nate wrote, not on what Jonathan wrote. As you and I have both said, with the way the world works now Nate is within his rights not to want to found a cooperative, and Jonathan is within his rights to be surprised that none of his colleagues care about this like he does. My point is simply this: Nate shouldn’t pretend that the model he’s proposing is or ever will become the kind of thing Jonathan is advocating for, because it’s not and will not, but I think Nate is pretending that. From what Jonathan wrote, I also don’t think he intended to storm out. I think he intended to advocate for something, likely with enough frustration and emotion that others who disagreed with him noticed the intensity of his feelings, and they decided to exclude him from further discussions to avoid drama rather than ever engaging with him to give their firm final decision in a calm but explicit way. They weren’t willing to give him a clear final no and instead ostracized him as part of their implicitly stated no. To be clear, I agree with your implication that Jonathan likely didn’t handle this in the way that would be best for his professional career going forward, insofar as he may not have been calm and diplomatic in his private advocacy and then went quite public with the level of venting we just read. But Nate’s response didn’t make him look good either; it felt as disingenuous as Jonathan’s earnest blog post may have been interpersonally unwise. Personally I prefer earnest but interpersonally unwise over disingenuous, since it’s easier to fix with constructive criticism and emotional support. But I know a lot of investors and employers don’t feel that way.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

The other side of the story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45266332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45266332

by nomdep 1y ago

The other side of the story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45266332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45266332

raverbashing 1y ago

Honestly, it seems some very technically minded people are very naive and very unprepared in regards to practical and legal aspects of life elsewhere. While building a career over such a project like KDE is certainly laudable it seems it leaves people in a very precarious position where the number of companies worldwide where you can be employed at any given time can be counted with the fingers in one hand, with some to spare

sho_hn 1y ago
> While building a career over such a project like KDE is certainly laudable it seems it leaves people in a very precarious position where the number of companies worldwide where you can be employed at any given time can be counted with the fingers in one hand, with some to spare Your average KDE contributor is an expert in at least two widely used technologies, C++ and Qt, and typically in several more. Purely KDE-related work may not be a huge employment market, but trust me it's not that hard for KDE folks to find work in general, and you will find them in many high places. That is to say that contributing is definitely not putting you into any precarious career positions :-)
- raverbashing 1y ago
  Agreed from the technical point of view But it seems most members of the community keep looking for jobs within the community and forget to look elsewhere

billyjobob 1y ago

Doesn’t sound like we have the full story from either side. This blog post from Nate reads like he is continuing to gaslight. But then Jonathan doesn’t explain why he didn’t just buy into the partnership like the other 2 did if he wanted to be a co-owner.

uncircle 1y ago
If you don’t have the full story, how are you saying one side is gaslighting? Stop throwing around accusatory words.
toyg 1y ago
Probably because he didn't have the capital. He's been doing KDE work for ages behind the scenes, but I don't think that made him much money. He hints at the fact that his professional condition hampered his attempt to keep his adopted kids with him, which would indicate he's not particularly wealthy.

jkaplowitz 1y ago

Thanks for sharing that. Nate’s article links to a comment in which he says the US has no legal cooperative structure “except for limited state-specific exceptions”. I don’t know why those state-specific laws for cooperatives don’t count - they aren’t in any way restricted to operating within the organizing state. I am a member/owner of a grocery store organized under NY’s cooperative corporation law, and they definitely do business with out of state suppliers. But that organization operates on a one person, one vote model, not a one dollar, one vote model. He seems to want one person to put in a disproportionate amount of investment capital and end up with a disproportionate amount of voting authority. That’s not the kind of “cooperative socialist” model which Jonathan was advocating, it’s a standard capitalist one. And I’m not saying that he has no right in the way the world works now to operate as a capitalist. He does. But he shouldn’t be surprised if someone who wants a cooperative model doesn’t view that as even aspirationally qualifying and isn’t satisfied by vague comments about how workers can gradually buy their way toward an approximation of equal power.

Saaster 1y ago
Your framing seems somehow backwards. Based on the other article[0] Nate and David bought out the business from Blue Systems. Jonathan (previously employed by Blue) proposes a co-op model, the new owners say “no thanks, we’re good”. Jonathan is surprised at this, storms out, detonating all the bridges on the way. [0] https://pointieststick.com/2025/03/10/personal-and-professional-updates-announcing-techpaladin-software/ https://pointieststick.com/2025/03/10/personal-and-professio...
- jkaplowitz 1y ago
  My framing seems backwards because I’m commenting on what Nate wrote, not on what Jonathan wrote. As you and I have both said, with the way the world works now Nate is within his rights not to want to found a cooperative, and Jonathan is within his rights to be surprised that none of his colleagues care about this like he does. My point is simply this: Nate shouldn’t pretend that the model he’s proposing is or ever will become the kind of thing Jonathan is advocating for, because it’s not and will not, but I think Nate is pretending that. From what Jonathan wrote, I also don’t think he intended to storm out. I think he intended to advocate for something, likely with enough frustration and emotion that others who disagreed with him noticed the intensity of his feelings, and they decided to exclude him from further discussions to avoid drama rather than ever engaging with him to give their firm final decision in a calm but explicit way. They weren’t willing to give him a clear final no and instead ostracized him as part of their implicitly stated no. To be clear, I agree with your implication that Jonathan likely didn’t handle this in the way that would be best for his professional career going forward, insofar as he may not have been calm and diplomatic in his private advocacy and then went quite public with the level of venting we just read. But Nate’s response didn’t make him look good either; it felt as disingenuous as Jonathan’s earnest blog post may have been interpersonally unwise. Personally I prefer earnest but interpersonally unwise over disingenuous, since it’s easier to fix with constructive criticism and emotional support. But I know a lot of investors and employers don’t feel that way.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]