6 ms·

I'd like to add a few ethical principles pertaining to employee relationships. * Not misleading prospective employees using "bait and switch" tactics regar

I'd like to add a few ethical principles pertaining to employee relationships. * Not misleading prospective employees using "bait and switch" tactics regarding the position or nature of the work. * If an employee requests an introduction, grant it. * Not behaving in a way that damages the reputation of an employee or ex-employee. * Separating with fair severance relative to the means of the company (possibly $0.00 and a good reference, pre-A; cash severance expected once rich). * Using open allocation if possible. * Not accumulating unreasonable technical debt. * Keeping the company engineer-driven as far as possible.

nedwin 12y ago
"* Not accumulating unreasonable technical debt. * Keeping the company engineer-driven as far as possible." Are these ethical issues?
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  I would say so, at least for the first (the second is more of a subjective preference). Accrual of technical debt usually comes out of a conflict of interest between management and engineers, and when the time-bomb goes off, it's usually engineers whose careers suffer.
acjohnson55 12y ago
Thanks for adding this. When I first finished reading the original guidelines, I thought I read through the entire thing without seeing any mention of the startup's employees. Upon second scan, I saw there was one mention. So many companies are treated like the personal fiefdoms of the founders. I'd love to see a business world where companies act like commonwealths for all stakeholders -- not just founders and big-time shareholders, but employees and the community. With many of the brightest startups flocking to it, YC is in a unique position of having the potential to be a major influence on the next 100 years of capitalism. I'd love to see it take an even more powerful stand on founder ethics.
jsonne 12y ago
> * Keeping the company engineer-driven as far as possible. That's an awfully large blanket statement that isn't right for many companies. Zappos places the emphasis on customer service and they're doing fine just as an example.
- mindcrime 12y ago
  I don't know why that got downvoted, because you're absolutely right. It's not necessarily the case that every company needs to prioritize "being engineer focused". As painful as it may be for some of us to acknowledge, if a company has a made a conscious decision to pursue a certain value discipline ("customer intimacy" for example), then it may not be terribly important to have an engineering focused culture. However, to be fair, michaelochurch did say "keeping the company engineer driven as far as possible", which is not a blanket statement that every company must be totally engineer focused. At the end of the day, every company has to make a series of tradeoffs and weigh different priorities against others. And the right choice of tradeoffs is (or should be) driven by a conscious decision about the company's value discipline and strategy.
cma 12y ago
How will open allocation for janitorial duties work? Supposing that just gets contracted out, how about the role of CEO? Just goes to whomever openly allocates it to himself?
- furyofantares 12y ago
  > How will open allocation for janitorial duties work? This would probably not be done via open allocation but I'm not sure it's unreasonable. Just hire a janitor. If they have other skills and they figure out they are more valuable doing other work, then hire a new janitor.
  - nomedeplume 12y ago
    Netflix's culture document ca 2010 suggested that everyone is responsible for janitorial duties
tptacek 12y ago
Of this list, only item #1 involves ethics of any sort. Someone on the Internet also wants The Joel Test added to the list of Founder Ethics, but that doesn't make Hallway Usability Tests an ethical issue.
- mahyarm 12y ago
  I would say #3 is pretty close too.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    A bad reference damages the reputation of a previous employee, but honesty and duty can compel an officer of a company to furnish a bad reference.
    - michaelochurch 12y ago
      A bad reference damages the reputation of a previous employee, but honesty and duty can compel an officer of a company to furnish a bad reference. Wrong.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        What I said last time about this: What I have to say about your perspective on references is that I will never, under any circumstances, work with, for, or over someone who believes what I think you're saying you believe about references. "Bad reference => war", to me, is essentially an endorsement of professional dishonesty. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5433552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5433552 At any rate, thank you for confirming my suspicion that your third "ethic" was "the ethic of not providing bad references ever".
        rdl 12y ago
        Related to the earlier thread: how do you (tptacek, moc, or others) feel about hiding expunged criminal convictions. Or vacated ones. e.g. if you were Randall Schwartz, or weev.

nedwin 12y ago

"* Not accumulating unreasonable technical debt. * Keeping the company engineer-driven as far as possible." Are these ethical issues?

michaelochurch 12y ago
I would say so, at least for the first (the second is more of a subjective preference). Accrual of technical debt usually comes out of a conflict of interest between management and engineers, and when the time-bomb goes off, it's usually engineers whose careers suffer.

acjohnson55 12y ago

Thanks for adding this. When I first finished reading the original guidelines, I thought I read through the entire thing without seeing any mention of the startup's employees. Upon second scan, I saw there was one mention. So many companies are treated like the personal fiefdoms of the founders. I'd love to see a business world where companies act like commonwealths for all stakeholders -- not just founders and big-time shareholders, but employees and the community. With many of the brightest startups flocking to it, YC is in a unique position of having the potential to be a major influence on the next 100 years of capitalism. I'd love to see it take an even more powerful stand on founder ethics.

jsonne 12y ago

> * Keeping the company engineer-driven as far as possible. That's an awfully large blanket statement that isn't right for many companies. Zappos places the emphasis on customer service and they're doing fine just as an example.

mindcrime 12y ago
I don't know why that got downvoted, because you're absolutely right. It's not necessarily the case that every company needs to prioritize "being engineer focused". As painful as it may be for some of us to acknowledge, if a company has a made a conscious decision to pursue a certain value discipline ("customer intimacy" for example), then it may not be terribly important to have an engineering focused culture. However, to be fair, michaelochurch did say "keeping the company engineer driven as far as possible", which is not a blanket statement that every company must be totally engineer focused. At the end of the day, every company has to make a series of tradeoffs and weigh different priorities against others. And the right choice of tradeoffs is (or should be) driven by a conscious decision about the company's value discipline and strategy.

cma 12y ago

How will open allocation for janitorial duties work? Supposing that just gets contracted out, how about the role of CEO? Just goes to whomever openly allocates it to himself?

furyofantares 12y ago
> How will open allocation for janitorial duties work? This would probably not be done via open allocation but I'm not sure it's unreasonable. Just hire a janitor. If they have other skills and they figure out they are more valuable doing other work, then hire a new janitor.
- nomedeplume 12y ago
  Netflix's culture document ca 2010 suggested that everyone is responsible for janitorial duties

tptacek 12y ago

Of this list, only item #1 involves ethics of any sort. Someone on the Internet also wants The Joel Test added to the list of Founder Ethics, but that doesn't make Hallway Usability Tests an ethical issue.

mahyarm 12y ago
I would say #3 is pretty close too.
- tptacek 12y ago
  A bad reference damages the reputation of a previous employee, but honesty and duty can compel an officer of a company to furnish a bad reference.
  - michaelochurch 12y ago
    A bad reference damages the reputation of a previous employee, but honesty and duty can compel an officer of a company to furnish a bad reference. Wrong.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      What I said last time about this: What I have to say about your perspective on references is that I will never, under any circumstances, work with, for, or over someone who believes what I think you're saying you believe about references. "Bad reference => war", to me, is essentially an endorsement of professional dishonesty. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5433552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5433552 At any rate, thank you for confirming my suspicion that your third "ethic" was "the ethic of not providing bad references ever".
      - rdl 12y ago
        Related to the earlier thread: how do you (tptacek, moc, or others) feel about hiding expunged criminal convictions. Or vacated ones. e.g. if you were Randall Schwartz, or weev.