Comment by ohyoutravel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ohyoutravel | Hacker News Reader

Really not trying to be a stick in the mud, and Mark does give me a little pause. However, there were only two people on this team, right? Which leads me to the conclusion that you were the PM (as you specifically say you're the project leader) and Mark was the engineer? I don't go to too many hackathons, but if it's you two only, that makes me think 50/50 split. I understand if you're parting ways, sure, but this seems like a legitimate complaint from a 50/50 split team:

"While I understand the original idea was yours, I need you to understand that the prize we won together. […] That exhibition booth […] is as much mine as it is yours."

And of course either of you can choose to leave the team unilaterally, but on a 50/50 team, it seems odd that one person can "fire" the other person and take all the benefits (minus one ticket) that the team won together. If we formed a 50/50 team, and a VC gave us a bunch of funding, and I told you I was firing you and giving you some of the VC money, you would be pretty miffed.

If there's a booth to demonstrate things, then your statement here seems odd:

"The tickets being offered were exactly what he would have gotten as a team member.."

because there's more to the benefits of winning than a ticket to a conference or whatever. Additionally, you paint his email as harassment, but I really don't see it:

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/2000/1*DQAH9nLoO8yC4rwtK...

I won't continue from there as hopefully you get the idea. And I'm not blaming you, but it really does not seem like harassment, despite the narrative you're painting. It makes me think you have some angle here, but someone shouldn't be "fired" and told to leave a project that they had a 50/50 stake in because you thought they were a little gruff.

Hi, I'm the OP!

There were no engineers on this team. I have a CS background but decided that because the project would require significant AI work, the best use of time during the weekend would be user research and wireframing to validate the proof-of-concept. I did program management, UX design, and was "CEO"; Mark did graphic design.

I don't want to get too into the weeds on what the exact breakdown of work was, but it wasn't an equal 50/50.

What I know is this:

- Techstars, the overall organization, doesn't provide guidance re: whether teams are hierarchical or non-hierarchical, or what should happen when and if teams split (which happens to 75% of them)

- Mentors had mixed guidance; however, multiple said that because I pitched the idea, did over half of the work, and was the "project leader" I was effectively "CEO"

- A lawyer I consulted with also said that without any partnership agreements promising a 50/50 split, "ownership" was mine as idea originator, project leader, etc.

But putting all that aside, I think the point most often overlooked is that if this was a company, if Mark was fired and then refused to leave, he'd be escorted away by security. If he threatened to show up later representing himself as an employee and talking to investors, that would be considered a credible threat and they'd take that seriously.

I didn't know if him busting into the project booth was the worst he'd try. I was considering hiring security and cancelled my trip at significant personal expense.

Totally agree that this would be an unacceptable way to act at a company, but this isn’t a company so the comparison isn’t super relevant. However, I appreciate you taking the time to give more of your thoughts.

Thanks!

Yeah, I agree it's not a company. I simply find it's the most useful analogy because it was the closest frame of reference I had for making decisions at the time.

Many companies also deal with ex-employees escalating, saying they won't accept the termination, etc. They're treated as security issues and credible threats.

The difference is that companies generally have HR departments and security; I don't. :)

I'm not sure the (frequent) comparison you are making to a company. In a real company, he would have received a salary for his work and equity. On the "firing" day, he would have received "severance". So if you are comparing it with a company and a termination, every termination involves some level of "severance" - unless you are firing him for cause (I'm keeping the company-firing analogy). I doubt this would be a termination for cause (I don't like you/it's not a good fit) is not a termination for cause.

I think the problem you have experienced is that you started a project with someone else in a team of 2. You managed him as an "employee" but he felt (right or wrong) to be a cofounder. It seems you haven't discusses this prior of the project, so somehow you got stuck with a co-founder (and everything else that followed is just that).

I've been in similar situations, where cofounders have to split. It's never easy and there's always intensity involved. I'd not call them harassment though. Following again your company analogy, when you fire an employee, there is (often) drama - especially if you try to fire an employee without severance (well, in that case often there are legal problems).

Anyway, if you point out he was a volunteer at a startup weekend, do not mention the company analogy. In the company analogy - regardless if he was a cofounder or an employee - he would not walk away empty handed.

>every termination involves some level of "severance" Where does this statement come from? I don't think that's true in the U.S., not for full-time employees and especially not for independent contractors. Especially not for an unpaid position like an intern (whether legal "for school credit" or illegal), which is what this most resembles.

If she was the CEO / owner of the hypothetical company (this seems to be the point that people disagree on - was she owner or co-founder?), she absolutely has the right to fire an unpaid "employee" whose contributions were two days of work with no expectation of severance.

From the Techstars FAQ: "Whether or not you continue to work on the idea with some or all of your team is completely up to you. Approximately 25% of Techstars Startup Weekend participants continue working on their idea with all of their team". She also gave him one of the 3 tickets, he just wouldn't be presenting the project in a booth and wouldn't continue working on the project.

This bit of the FAQ seems to encourage the very issue that led to this conflict...

"How do teams address the issue of Intellectual Property/ownership?"

"As with any startup, the team decides. Techstars Startup Weekend doesn’t support or take part in the signing of any legal documents at the events themselves, and while Mentors with legal backgrounds are often present and able to give general advice, they are not permitted to give specific legal counsel. While it doesn’t hurt to be clear about your individual expectations from the start, we’ve found that teams who don’t spend time addressing this issue until it actually matters (i.e., there is a tangible product to have ownership of) are much more productive and successful than those who do."

...

By not addressing the exact nature of the agreement; by not making it clear that the expectation was that Mark was volunteering and thus giving away his talent; by not making it clear that he was expected to simply help and then go away when no longer wanted; by doing not doing these things up front, Mark was left to make his own assumptions. So bad on Mark, and bad on the author, IMHO. No wonder this ended badly.

And more to the point, bad on Techstars for encouraging this.

I agree, there's a lot of policy grey area which potentially leads to issues like these. I'm discussing with Techstars, and they'll hopefully be closing these loopholes moving forward.

This was my first hackathon. I was a bit naive and didn't know what conversations to have at the start. I didn't go into the weekend intending to start a startup or win. I also wish the event organizers had at least mentioned expectation-setting, because it was just... BOOM! And we're off!

At the end of the weekend I definitely had a conversation with Mark about needing to determine next steps. I was quite clear that I wasn't sure the project would be continuing.

This doesn't address the issue of IP (code ownership, licensing, etc.). She gave him 33% of something he arguably had 50% access to (the 3 tickets), and she took 100% of the booth presence. Oh, and she took 100% control of the project. She was only 50% of the winning team.

Math is hard for some people... maybe she has problems with it, too, and thinks that yelling "harassment" will make the math problems go away. Unfortunately, that's not how the world works.

I have no doubt that the "25%" statistic is because most of those are the people who didn't win and everyone abandoned the project.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com