Another management lesson here. We often talk about how VC Board Members behave badly. Sometimes board members do. But one reason you really want a board is for times like this.
Boards serve a number of purposes - management accountability and financial oversight are the big ones. A lot of early startups don’t have boards, and Basecamp probably doesn’t (it’s an LLC). It’s a mistake in both cases.
When you’re the CEO or co-founder, you’ve got a responsibility to the business, to your employees. If you’re doing it right, it’s frequently lonely and nerve wracking. You’re solving problems other people can’t or won’t most of the time. (Otherwise they wouldn’t be your problems)
A board gives you valuable things. One is a regular, scheduled cadence of accountability. What’s happened? Where are we going? What are our challenges? It forces you to look up from your work, take stock, and clarify your intent.
It gives you voices, frequently with more experience at a high level than the founders, who can give you valuable perspective on what you should consider doing. Even things you already know can be valuable, because they validate your approach.
In a crisis like this one, they also form a closed door cabinet. They can talk about the business, what’s happening, and what needs to happen, with far less passion than management. They’re frequently not in their feelings about it.
(We’re talking ideally here - I’ve experienced board members being deeply in their feelings on issues where they should’ve been more dispassionate)
The point is, they aren’t on fucking Twitter going off about anything. They aren’t expressing their opinions to employees. They’re telling you what they think you should do, and if you can’t fix things, they’re firing you.
I can’t stress enough how important it is that a person can be fired. It’s part of what helps make executive roles work, in my experience. It becomes *work* again, which is what it needs to be to stay sane.
If you’re the god-king of Company Town, with the power of a Roman emperor and nobody to even give you council - it isn’t hard to decide that this is your life. That’s a bad thing in a CEO - we need them making decisions about the company, not decisions about them!
Boards can help create the power dynamics that everyone needs to be great. They create the space for accountability for CEOs and executives. They give them permission to do a job, which is critical.
If DHH and Jason have a functioning board right now that can fire them, I would be stunned. I bet they barely have an advisory board!
And I bet they deeply could use the combination of dispassionate advice and accountability a board brings. Also, they would be being yelled at to shut up and get off Twitter, and hire some crisis comms firm stat!
So, friends: have a board. As soon as possible. Put people on it you want to see when you’re having your own version of this crisis. Make yourself fireable. Do the work. You’ll thank me eventually.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let’s talk about Mike Kail being convicted. Full disclosure, I’ve met Mike a handful of times socially - he was definitely in the same infrastructure and venture scene. We have lots of connections. My recollection is he was nice and eager to be helpful. justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/f…
In that scene (executive/founder/venture) it is very common to be introduced to other founders or executives, for the specific purpose of giving advice and aid. I try and do this as often as humanly possible - I never say no (sometimes it’s a “not this week”, but never “no”)
Sometimes you do that and everyone clicks - your advice is helpful, the team likes you. At that point it’s common to offer an advisory role - that usually comes with a small stock grant. I always turn these down. For three reasons.
if you’re a leader, and you aren’t analyzing how you would act, and why, in the situation at basecamp, you’re missing a golden opportunity. Every step offers a gold mine of introspection.
How not to roll out policy changes? Check. Why you never bundle things together? Check. Public airing of dirty laundry? Check.
I like to believe I would’ve killed the names list the moment I saw it. In 2009 it wouldn’t have been because I thought it was racist (tho I see that it is now), but because you cannot have disdain for the people you serve.
If I had to pick one thing I learned at Chef, it is this, even if you’re the founder. I had to turn it into a job, that I happened to love, with people I loved, but that ultimately was about the work. Not about my self worth. Just about doing good work, day after day.
Before I did that, everything was multi layered and fraught. I was harder to work with, much more volatile, and sometimes capricious. I’m a little that way by nature - but when my life is all tied up like that, it was so much worse.
Once I realized it could be work - everything got easier. My decisions, my feelings, my friendships. listen to Emily and Jill. Make your work be about your work. Free yourself to find pride in it, but have it be a part of your self worth and life, instead of the opposite.
The more time I spend in software development, the more I feel like everything hinges on architecture that is flexible in the face of new understanding about the domain. Too much architecture too soon means discovery slows down. Too little later on and the system can’t evolve.
Trying to do TDD without a firm grasp of architecture patterns is like building your own straight jacket. But then later, under testing the architecture means you’ll never be truly stable.
It’s a constant balancing act between over architecting and under architecting. The answers change with the code base, and with the teams, and ultimately ideally with the richness of our understanding of the domain were operating in.
This misses the point wildly. There aren’t different understandings of what open source means. There are people who want what they want. If they still can get it, they’re usually fine with whatever.
When you think you get to define what an important software term means, because you want to retain an advantage - I don’t care what you believe. Just because you say the sky is purple doesn’t make it so. Gross. Do better, @graylog2.
To be clear - like it or not, open source is defined by OSI. As a community we rely on it. We need it, so we can trust what liberties it grants. I’m on the side of there being a more open discussion - but just saying “we think it’s okay” is some bullshit.
You know it’s not. You wanted the non-compete part of the license more than you cared about it being open source. Own that shit. Stand up for your principles.