HN user

anonStartupCTO

15 karma
Posts1
Comments28
View on HN

I think you're right that there are some deeper issues here, and no one is doubting that the issues with the uptime need to get fixed ASAP, but I disagree with your notion that because I am taking my grievances public, the venture is over. There is a reason I am anonymous: I want to get feedback from other hackers, not throw my co-founders under a bus.

I feel the need to follow up on this comment.

IMO, the OP of the comment was rude by implying that having internet as a utility is on the same level as having electricity or that I'd need to buy my own computer to be on call. (Especially since he didn't explain his reasoning) If this were reddit, I wouldn't have bothered, but I feel the need to call out especially negative, rude, or non-constructive comments on HN.

My apologies that I sniped at him/her.

Right. I feel the need to add that it's not all "us vs. them" in the day-to-day, but the subject of this post is a negotiation between me and them, hence the 'us vs. them' demeanor in some of my comments.

I think you're right to question whether the $40/month is the real issue. I am questioning myself whether I want to be on a team whose non-technical leaders (I feel) do not respect their technical team members.

Thanks for the input.

Yes, I get along with the other founders. Yes, I've asked them to pay for it. And yes, they've declined. We're sort of at a deadlock.

I posted on HN so I could get input from other hackers. I don't feel that I should air my dirty laundry in public (hence the anonymity)

> A. Do you need someone on call 24/7 (i.e. is the difference between 97% and 100% uptime significant in your business) Yes > B. Can somebody else be your out-of-ours support person? No.

The issue is not that I mind being on call when things are broken. The issue is that they want me to pay my own way in order to be on call. It's insulting.

Thanks for your input. I see that side of things too, though I am not entirely convinced of the implication that because I am an employee of a tech company, I need internet (at my own expense).

I'm curious if you could articulate that implication here?

RE: the CTO title. It's easy to be the 'chief' code monkey, when you're the only code monkey. =)

I agree with your sentiments about working hard to fix the problems. I have been heads down on this project for 2 years. The psychological strain from the 12 hour days, 6 days a week is really wearing on me. I'd like to have a personal life, too please.

No, I'm not looking for other work. I've told my partners that I'm in it until there is no more 'it'. If I were looking for other work, it wouldn't necessarily have to have some high-and-mighty title like 'CTO', though.

Yeah. I'm basically getting by by 'borrow'ing wifi from a cafe that's downstairs. Their signal is unreliable at best, though.

I'd love it if the company got a wifi card for whoever is on call. Both parties are refusing to foot the bill though.

While I suspect your comment to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I feel the need to be clear about this: I do not 'hate' the internet. In fact, I love it. In small doses. While it allows me to run operations efficiently while in the office, I find it to be a horrendous time waster during my personal time.

It does help. Thank you.

To get to the thrust of my question: I feel taken advantage of that my co-founders are expecting me to get internet at home for work-purposes, while expecting that I'll be paying for it personally. I understand I am the CTO, and that creates some level of expectation that I have internet at home. But, at the end of the day, we're a funded company, and I feel they should pay for it if they feel that strongly about it. After all, when they want to go out to dinner to schmooze investors (as you would expect from a CEO), the company pays.