That's a good point. Thanks for bringing it up so I can clarify my position :)
It's not about calling one person a liar vs the other. Rather, it's about accepting that there are multiple sides to every story. Without an unbiased third party, it devolves into he said/she said.
If formal charges aren't brought forward (which would allow for more facts/third party analysis), then why should one person be denigrated? Should a hint of an accusation, sourced by third parties, be enough to fire someone over? If so, what does that firing actually solve?[0]
Anyway, I understand this is a trigger issue, esp. after Susan's post, but to over-react is as bad under-reacting: you want to fix the problem, and you can't do that when you are busy scapegoating.
[0] I'm talking about this specific case, not sexual harassment cases in general.
It's not just for the courts: I do believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Why? Golden rule: given a role reversal, I would like the same consideration.
Please note that the "headache" this seems to have caused is purely an external optics one. Not sure how great of a team you would have if you cut off members at first sign of issues.
Maybe the sort of dysfunctional mess Uber seems to have.
Internal, not external, optics are vastly more important in a company.
Wasn't trying to cast aspersions/take anything away: I think it's great that you are open sourcing anything. Kudos.
I was just pointing out that this infrastructure might have been great to start, but you guys moved to a very different, in terms of architecture , v2.
There are a bunch of competitors and SMBs very much care about the price tag so 100s of dollars is a massive stretch[0].
Note that this alleviates the pain of the staff, not the business ie vitamin for the entity paying for it, but pain killer for their part-time workers.
But, I do agree pricing is out of whack. I would probably try to charge directly based on the number of staff managed (eg: $1/staff member/month).
[0] I run a startup selling to SMBs in the service sector. Upfront dollar amount is a massive hurdle. However, upsells/elastic pricing based on users is easier.
It's not about saying everyone or even most people in the US are racist. It's about considering whether a visit would be marred by the current miasma of (institutional?) racism/anti-immigrant sentiment.
For example: would you, as a US citizen, choose to visit Iran vs going somewhere else?
This is one of the benefits of being a founder with YC/well-connected VCs.
Even if you burn though millions without figuring out a market, you will land on your feet (if you are on the executive team). Your employees? Not so much.
My words may sound negative, but my point is: most people who are working at startups should seriously consider starting one instead.
I might be missing the point, but a lot of the responses sound emotion driven, with the overwhelming emotion being the fear of change. So, it seems patronizing to attribute any sort pro/con formalism. Basically, Trump has a lot of fear driven rhetoric, and if you heard one of your fears, then regardless of the validity, you felt that someone was taking your side.
It's not about calling one person a liar vs the other. Rather, it's about accepting that there are multiple sides to every story. Without an unbiased third party, it devolves into he said/she said.
If formal charges aren't brought forward (which would allow for more facts/third party analysis), then why should one person be denigrated? Should a hint of an accusation, sourced by third parties, be enough to fire someone over? If so, what does that firing actually solve?[0]
Anyway, I understand this is a trigger issue, esp. after Susan's post, but to over-react is as bad under-reacting: you want to fix the problem, and you can't do that when you are busy scapegoating.
[0] I'm talking about this specific case, not sexual harassment cases in general.