Startup Hackathon labels developers as 'resources' | Hacker News Reader

Startup Hackathon labels developers as 'resources'

entrepreneursummercamp.com

22 pointsthehodge37 comments

I see it's time for the weekly HN pitchfork- and torch-fest. "Resource" is a term with a lot of history in this context, it's used by everyone, and everyone knows what it means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_resources

Why are we so hungry for drama that we chomp at the bit every time some little thing like this comes up? You know what they're saying, you just want to ignore it and make it into a fiasco. Move on.

Sure, but it is a little insulting to be thought of as a resource.

It's unnecessary, it's dehumanizing, and I - for one - am not cool with it, history or no.

The word-choice is really a minute issue. The more appalling one is that the "entrepreneur" potentially wins half the prize while his "resources" split the other half. This seems grossly unfair given that the entrepreneur doesn't seem to bring any value other than his/her idea to the event.

... the only difference listed between an entrepreneur and resource is that the former has an idea they want to try out. So I'd fully expect the entrepreneur to be a developer/designer/sales person who can contribute in significant ways.

Was just posted this by a friend and am absolutely gobsmacked...

You come up with an idea and then get assigned 'resources' who build it for the next 36 hours.. then when its all done.. you split the winnings 50% / 50%..

Really puts a bad taste in my mouth.

(Sort of disclaimer, I compete in a lot of hackdays and I run http://www.leedshack.com in the UK)

Potentially less than 50/50. The "entrepreneur" gets $1k, the rest of the resources have to split the other $1k. Doesn't seem that fair to me

Pairing an 'entrepreneur' with a developer can work, and I know of cases where the 'idea guy' deserves 50% - they tackle the market and sell the product. But in a Hackathon environment I'm not sure it would work: you have to share the same passion. It takes someone who has the insight and ability to push forward a really great product in an industry in which they completely understand, and a development partner who is completely engaged in wanting to implement this technology (or ideally, you both come from the same place). Is a weekend enough time to spark this kind of connection?

An "idea guy" who also handles marketing and sales shouldn't be considered just an "idea guy".

I completely agree but I feel there is a bias on HN towards non-technical founders, certainly under these conditions. I think it's important to understand what traits of a non-tech co-founders are going to be more valuable / interesting to work with: I've seen friends get stuck in bad positions because the founder can't grow a business (I've been in this place myself when young).

Well if thats how its going to be perhaps I'll register a bail of hay and a bunch scrap metal I have laying around as a resource.

On another note its amazes me that the term resource in business speak hasn't become obsolete. Your job as an entrepreneur/manager/etc by enlarge is to motivate people to do work - objectifying those people doesn't help.

From the site:

"1. Register either as an Entrepreneur (who has an existing idea or business) or someone who can be a Resource (has business, technical, or design skills and wants to help). There is a $20 ticket required after registration – to cover basic expenses and ensure you will be teamed with serious participants."

That sounds reasonable to me. If you're a developer (or designer, or biz dev, or some mixture) and have your own idea, you register as an Entrepreneur. If you DON'T have an idea, but DO have valuable skills, you can sign-up to help out.

How is this so bad?

I can't think of a great alternative. "Employee" doesn't really fit. Nor does "team-member." "Developer" is too specific (since any role could fit here). For those who see this as a travesty, what would you prefer?

Ideas are cheap

Built-in class distinction: the entrepreneur is the important leading visionary who brings vast experience, immense wealth, split-second decisiveness, capital, razor-sharp econometric analysis, start-of-the-art buzzword compliance, best practices in psychological manipulation for sustainable employee peak performance, cosmopolitan worldliness and indispensable connections to the Hackathon. His time is valuable. The mere resource is a wannabe who hopes to help out in some way. Also, the entrepreneur is a gastronome, while the resource feeds on Ramen noodles.

What's so bad with that? From what I could see, anyone could choose to sign up as an entrepreneur. What a wonderful world, where people can choose their class!

Call it 'Builder', 'Maker' or anything else. 'Resource' has a lot of baggage and ignoring that doesn't make any sense.

Right, but your proposed terms aren't really mutually exclusive with the entrepreneur who could be a dev/designer/whatever him/herself.

> I can't think of a great alternative. "Employee" doesn't really fit. Nor does "team-member." "Developer" is too specific

How about "Talent"?

The entrepreneur could be an awesome developer who also is very talented.

Working non stop for 36 hours while being called a 'resource' and some shmuck with an idea gets 50%? That sounds great! Sign me up.

I have a name for this, and its called exploitation.

Headline "HN User Mindcrime labels Startup Hackathon 'Fuck You'"

Seriously, WTF? I am not a bloody resource, I am a human being. Anybody who talks about people as "resources" is scum as far as I'm concerned.

It's no doubt that the intentions are pretty innocent (it could be a dev/designer etc.).

However the context that many developers come from is literally being allocated as a "resource" in a project plan somewhere (and being switched out for other "resources" which we all know never works). So maybe this terminology hits a little too close to home for comfort.

Consider us a bit shell-shocked and sensitive to this word (although I can't think of a better one tbh - "Enabler"?)

Not just developers, but anybody who can contribute to a team, other than the person who is leading, is a resource. Includes designers, etc.

I mean, maybe they could have found a better all-encompassing word, but they apparently mean no disrespect to developers.

Yeah, this is the way I see it. Without any further context/history of them being disrespectful, I see no reason to start flipping out over a poor choice of words.

The person leading a team is (maybe) contributing, why are they magically not a resource and all the other members of the team are?

I see it just as the focal point for setting the goal of the team. The captain, if you will.

I have been resource in various kind of endeavors, but this with the minus 0.55 dollar/hour seems like the lowest hourly rate ever heard. Obviously they don't see it that way, but when I'm labelled as a resource I expect a payment, instead of paying for the 'opportunity'.

On the other hand, when I'm part of the team, it's quite reasonable to work for the lower-probability high-amount windfall, like the prize here. Interesting how a small change in wording, could indicate a different type of thinking, and therefore lead to a big change in my actions.

The problem here is simply because when you say "entrepreneur" people automatically assume you're non-technical.

The organisers probably thought "people with ideas" whether technical or non-technical and "people who don't have ideas but wants to work on others' ideas"

Regardless, it is still ambiguous as to whether that was what they really meant.

Maybe they really meant "Unique snowflake" vs "Cog in the wheel". Who knows.

How about "ideator" vs "executor".

While having people actually refer to themselve as resources is pretty scary, it's not exactly new. It's just that business people have no regard for human dignity, which is also why the department for hiring people in companies is called 'Human Resources'.

And no matter how nicely that is sugarcoated, that's just what you are to those people.

At least they're not mincing words. This is what sponsored hackathons are all about, after all.

Uhh...isn't this just business-speak? The human resource department?

All employees are referred to as "human resources". This isn't new, and it isn't meant as a dig at developers.

Executives love calling themselves resources. Not.

Here's the real take away from this. Copy is important and copy is hard. Don't skimp out on copy...unless you want to unknowingly offend.

I don't really understand why any serious Developer or Entrepreneur for that matter even goes to these type of events.

I'm not sure what you mean by "serious developer", but I went to my first hackathon about 2 weeks ago, and I had a good time. I met a lot of cool people, as well as learned a lot. It was nice to set aside the time and really focus on getting something done.

Yeah I suppose if you are in the market for new friends this type of thing is great.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com