Hacker News Reader

Comment by jackmott | Hacker News Reader

And I would be reluctant to work with someone who wouldn't write that letter.

I'm not asking this disrespectfully, but how do you intend to identify such people? Track down a list of all Uber investors who have not written such a letter?

Depends, are you asking about the parent poster's statement literally, or are you asking about the more general point of finding investors who have principles and integrity and are willing to hold you to them?

Could you explain why? Honest question.

I'm not the grandparent poster, but I can say why I would want that.

I'm not perfect. I make mistakes. If I were a founder and I made a mistake running my company, I would want my investors to tell me. I would want them to tell me privately, so I could do something about it without creating a huge public scandal. And I would listen to what they said -- I might, after careful consideration, disagree, but I would absolutely listen and take it to heart.

Now, suppose I were not the founder, but some other member of management in a company, and the company was making a mistake. I would want the investors and board members to talk to the CEO (and other people, perhaps even me, depending on my role). I would want the CEO to listen (just as I would). But if the CEO were NOT listening, if the CEO were part of the problem... well, then I would want the investors and board members to use other channels (even public letters if that's what it took) to rescue the company before it was destroyed.

" But if the CEO were NOT listening, if the CEO were part of the problem... well, then I would want the investors and board members to use other channels (even public letters if that's what it took) to rescue the company before it was destroyed."

Errr, they literally describe this as the case?

(IE they tried all of the channels you suggest first)

> Errr, they literally describe this as the case?

Yes, that's why mcherm is saying that he agrees with the open letter having been written and published.

They wrote that they already tried those channels. Justified at that point to grab the megaphone.

Interesting, thank you for sharing.

Because they prefer morally scrupulous co-workers. Just a guess.

I think they should do a lot more than the letter, but not publicly. (And to be fair, it sounds like they did, until recently.) The ultimate goal here should be "make Uber a better company -- for employees, customers, and society", not "burnish the Kapor's SJW credentials". The public letter accomplishes the latter, not the former.

The Kapors are invested in Uber. If anything, they would care more about the success of Uber than all the other commentators here--aside from any employees.

Right now, they're probably walking a fine line between doing the right thing and maintaining some sort of ROI. I didn't know about the Kapors until today, but considering Mitch's background as an EFF cofounder, the companies Kapor Capital has invested in, and their two other articles on Medium posted a year ago, their actions show they care about more than just profits.

If all the Kapors' effort happens to be for "burnishing SJW credentials" then so be it, at least they're making a difference in the real world.

From reading the letter it sounds like they've been trying to do more for years in private, without success.

What is your reasoning to state so unequivocally that the goal of this is not to make Uber a better company?

Do you agree at least in theory that there is some amount of time of attempting to influence a company in private without success after which it is appropriate to go public? If not why not, and if so why are you so certain that that time requirement has not been met yet in this case?

What are their "SJW credentials"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com