Hacker News Reader

Comment by gojomo | Hacker News Reader

While the 'wife' aspect has drawn a lot of attention, it seems that through her marriage she may essentially have a founder's level of equity in the company. I don't know the personalities involved, but she might also have relevant professional experience, and/or have been genuinely helpful in handling thorny issues in the past (even if this case clearly escalated into many kinds of mutual suspicion and recriminations).

So it seems you could replace 'wife' in the retelling with 'early investor and advisor', and be equally accurate, but without the extra (gender-loaded) implication of improper influence being exercised by some meddling consort.

View on HN

It doesn't matter how much equity she has. Or how much professional experience she has. She is not an employee and hence is not entitled to interfere in the internal affairs of the company without management oversight.

If an appropriately senior office of the company invites someone (equity holder or not) to observe or participate in the internal affairs of the company then it is that officer's responsibility to make the situation clear to the employees which whom he/she will be interacting and to oversee such interactions. Needless to say, if such interactions cause distress or could constitute harassment then it is the officer's job to deal with the problem.

To state the blindingly obvious, I may have shares in IBM and expertise in cloud computing but that does not entitle me to walk into IBM data centers and sit opposite ops staff all day.

Again, try substituting "early investor and trusted advisor of" the founder for "wife of" the founder. Such people play important roles in startups all the time. It's not a matter of "entitlements", startups regularly accept help, and deep involvement from, interested associates of their founders and executives. In some suitably-informal workplaces, any employee could invite a trusted friend in for meetings, offer guest access to internal systems, and then take definitive action on any recommendations received - no employment-relationship or contract or exchange-of-consideration required.

It's not the government. It's not the military. Organizations aren't all titles and reporting-diagrams, and especially not in small/private/fast-moving/crisis-handling enterprises.

I agree, but as I state about, in such circumstances "...it is that officer's responsibility to make the situation clear to the employees which whom he/she will be interacting and to oversee such interactions. Needless to say, if such interactions cause distress or could constitute harassment then it is the officer's job to deal with the problem."

> genuinely helpful

As in, sit across from someone you don't like and glare at them all day?

> it seems that through her marriage she may essentially have a founder's level of equity in the company

What about the founder's mom? Or the founder's father? Or the founder's children? Or the founder's dear grandma?

There's a reason why equity and investor/adviser roles should be clear and formalized. Bringing cookies at your spouse's work place doesn't entitle you to anything more than polite greetings.

Depends; the marital union is unique (in law and practice), and you haven't said whether the other hypotheticals I posited (de facto large equity position, industry expertise, or a tradition of being effectively helpful) may also exist.

Mixing business with family is always fraught with danger. But it works for a lot of startups.

It's often better to formalize roles & titles, to help everyone reach similar knowledge about real power/responsibility – rather than relying on tacit knowledge, which varies with tenure, social skills, and (in the extreme) romantic relationships. But lots of startups have done well with, and even earned praise and fame for, their low-formalities, low-titles, low-hierarchy, environment.

Marriage is typically associated with sharing assets and belongings. While some parents can be quite free in helping their children out financially, it doesn't mean you can just go into your parents' house and take their money out of their wallets without asking them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_property

I don't think that property acquired during the marriage extends to jobs.

No but it does to stock.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com