Comment by Shank | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Shank | Hacker News Reader

> As a result, Dani has asked me to resign and completely step away from elementary. This was not my intention when seeking out another position, but Dani has been adamant. In the end, I have decided that the best course of action is indeed for me to move on; I’m giving up on my decade-plus passion for elementary, and have accepted an offer for Dani to be the sole, 100% owner of elementary, Inc. I’ve signed my resignation and as of today, she now owns the entirety of the company shares and responsibility. I wish her the best in continuing its legacy.

> In line with Dani’s wishes, I will no longer be involved in any way at elementary.

This seems just shy of a hostile takeover. I’m not sure I’d be comfortable in running an OS or supporting a company that is now solely owned by one person who felt it necessary to kick someone out who clearly was willing to work for free on the project.

Is there something I’m missing here? I would expect this if there was some huge scandal, but out of the blue this seems like it’s just toxic behavior from a cofounder?

> a company that is now solely owned by one person who felt it necessary to kick someone out who clearly was willing to work for free on the project.

I've no idea about this particular situation or what Dani's motivation was, but "work for free" isn't the right description if it involves retaining half of the company (which has revenue and aspires to be worth more).

> but "work for free" isn't the right description if it involves retaining half of the company (which has revenue and aspires to be worth more).

I suppose that's a fair interpretation of the situation. In my opinion, though, if the company is heading downwards in revenue enough to suggest sacrificing salaries, the ownership stake isn't worth much in the moment. The value might be earned by working on the project, but I personally value the shares of a company that can't pay its employees exceedingly low.

Shares are worth little until they aren't. If I'm the partner taking the major risk and the other is "I'll work on it when it doesn't interfere with $DAYJOB", then I'm going to protect my (possible) upside and try to recoup the equity. Just business.

But all of the equity? I think the person leaving should walk away with some equity.

I didn't say it was an equitable parting, and I agree with you that a founder should have something. But we don't know how the parting negotiations went down, nor what they were willing to fight for, nor how involved lawyers were (because lawyers == money lost and at some point you have to realize that sucking up your residual equity paying lawyers to fight for it is counterproductive (financially and personally)).

Not sure that's fair, the ownership of the company was earned in the past. Future work without additional compensation would be for free. I agree that it might be in their own financial self-interest, but it would still be free.

the real problem is the decision making power isn't it?

Mm, suspect we’re hearing one side of this. If my cofounder took a full time position elsewhere, yes, I’d want to buy them out too.

The remaining cofounder appears to have bought them out and the leaving one appears to have accepted. That's by mutual consent and the furthest thing from a hostile takeover.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com