3 ms·

I'm Twitter user #6, was the head of engineering at Odeo when Twitter was built, and was one of four people in the management meetings (along with Ev, Noah, and

I'm Twitter user #6, was the head of engineering at Odeo when Twitter was built, and was one of four people in the management meetings (along with Ev, Noah, and Tim). Some of this story rings true and some of it is total nonsense. To my understanding of it, Twitter's staffing is much more a story of meritocracy. People were pushed out or replaced as the company outgrew their ability. Every replacement ended up being an upgrade. That includes Noah to Jack to Ev. And that also includes the turnover on the early tech team once the Summize team was acquired. Twitter grew 1400% in 2007. That's a lot of growth and it's not necessarily a knock on someone to be a good fit early but to be over their head by the end of that year.

changdizzle 13y ago
In your opinion, what rings true and what rings false? I'd assume that most of the points (e-mail trails, trusted sources) are fact-checked if verifiable.
- tonystubblebine 13y ago
  Certainly some of the facts are true. I read one of the quotes and thought, "Oh, I remember that email." But the ways those facts are connected is just the author's interpretation. I propose an alternative, less sinister interpretation: Although the history of Twitter includes hurt feelings, it's mostly a history of rational decisions to put the right team in place to keep up with rapid growth.