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.
The first is personal - if you give me compensation, what goes from being a kind bit of aid to a fellow traveler turns into a job in my head. I already have a job. I don’t need a million side jobs.
The second is practical - I see a lot of companies, and meet a lot of founders. I want to help all of them if I can. But they often compete *with each other*. If I have advisory stock in A, I shouldn’t be helping out competitors. That would be unethical.
I’m careful to tell people this when I know their is conflict, and I’m careful not to share what I learn. That I’m helpful but not invested is what lets me do that.
The third is because of conflicts of interest like this. I don’t only talk to founders - I give advice to companies on what they should consider and why. If I’m an advisor with equity to your company, I both need to disclose that, and it taints my perspective and advice.
When someone asks me what I think, I want to be able to say it with a clear conscience and without a massive internecine web of entanglements. So my position is simply to just say no.
(Side bar - Chef had tons of advisors like this. They all gave meaningful advice for very short periods of time. I love all of them. SI will have zero. Because none of them needed comped for the advice they would’ve given freely)
Another layer is the ease with which you can double dip with consulting fees. Coaching and management advise is a real industry with high value. But it’s also an easy way to get a little extra for not a big time investment! Why meet for an hour for free when I could make $$?
I’ve seen founders have meetings with folks they were introduced to by venture they wanted to raise from. Then *in the meeting* be told they should get advisory shares or cash consulting fees to “help them raise successfully”.
What starts out as accepting a common courtesy (advisor shares) quickly can turn in to a lucrative side hustle, that’s in direct conflict with your work, your ability to give advice. No threat to your integrity there, no bribery. Just good old capitalism at work.
But then you come to expect it. It feeds your ego (it feels *great* to help people). The money is always nice. Next thing you know you aren’t accepting what’s offered - your selling. Then you’re making it more legit - starting a little LLC for your management advise, maybe.
Then you’re talking to Sumo logic at a VC dinner, become an advisor and consultant, and help them get in the door at Netflix (and you forget to mention the conflict of interest, because you tell yourself you don’t want to taint the process by having them know you love Sumo)
Then you’re suddenly juggling all those responsibilities, hustling to make good on all those “advisory” roles. It goes from “helping fellow entrepreneurs get started” with “how to navigate the enterprise sales process” to “spending years in prison for bribery and kickbacks”
Faster than you might expect. The willingness to cross the small lines leads quickly a snowball of big lines. I bet Mike didn’t start out thinking: ha, let’s build a bribery machine.
Instead, he was doing what people do *all the time* in Silicon Valley: just dipping his toes in all over, seeing where he might make some money, and help people who need it! It’s the dream!
But then you like the money. You plan on it. The expectations revolve around it. And what was honest help at first is a federal bribery conviction - that you deserve.
So, my summary advice: don’t offer advisory shares. Don’t ask for them. Don’t double dip with management consulting. And the big kahuna, which should never need to be said: do not fucking lie.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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)
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.