Rip docker !
Au Revoir
31–40 of 305 posts
Re: Au Revoir
#32I was able to get the page to load, here's the text of thet post: "Today I’m announcing my departure from Docker, the company I helped create ten years ago and have been building ever since. A founder’s departure is usually seen as a dramatic event. Sadly, I must report that reality is far less exciting in this case. I’ve had many roles at Docker over the years, and today I have a new, final one – as an active board…
Having read this I wonder what really went down. I get that his shares are fully vested, but personally I would not walk away from such a role at a company with this kind of growth and mind share.
Nothing terribly interesting needs to have gone down. Someone who is the right fit to lead a company from a scrappy three-person startup to a large established tech company, and enjoys it the entire time, is a unicorn among unicorns.
Re: Au Revoir
#33Like a lot of tech folks, I've only interacted with Solomon on the internet, but in probably every interaction, I've come away from it feeling smarter, or more capable, going all the way back to the very early days of Dotcloud.
I understand the realities of working in a corporation, and the demands on C-level executives, but it's hard to imagine any company that is improved by his departure from it.
Fare well, Solomon. Eager to see what you've got planned next.
Re: Au Revoir
#34"Our goal was to harness an obscure technology called containers"
Was that really the goal? My impression was that dotcloud was just a hosting company
Re: Au Revoir
#35It always amazes me how you can convince a founder/CEO is not right man for the job, and slowly push him away. Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. It might make feel the companies run smoother for some time, but day-to-day executives are harmful to a company core vision leading to boring companies if they manage to sustain profitability in the long run at all.
That's a pretty harsh generalisation.
Edit: I should probably expand on that. Yes, in some cases keeping the founder as a CEO can be important for the morale of the team, but sometimes bringing in outside experience (the so called 'adult supervision') can be very important for a company. Eric Schmidt did a great job doing this for Google, before he assumed the role as chairman, leaving the CEO post for the founders at a later point.
Re: Au Revoir
#36I was able to get the page to load, here's the text of thet post: "Today I’m announcing my departure from Docker, the company I helped create ten years ago and have been building ever since. A founder’s departure is usually seen as a dramatic event. Sadly, I must report that reality is far less exciting in this case. I’ve had many roles at Docker over the years, and today I have a new, final one – as an active board…
Having read this I wonder what really went down. I get that his shares are fully vested, but personally I would not walk away from such a role at a company with this kind of growth and mind share.
Isn't it really hard to know what you would or wouldn't do in such a situation? What if he's just kinda tired, you know?
Re: Au Revoir
#37It always amazes me how you can convince a founder/CEO is not right man for the job, and slowly push him away. Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. It might make feel the companies run smoother for some time, but day-to-day executives are harmful to a company core vision leading to boring companies if they manage to sustain profitability in the long run at all.
Whereas effective leaders are required to manage not only the day-to-day, but turning the core vision into an actual business plan that can pay employees rather than just burn VC money. My experience is the opposite; I've worked at two companies where the founder has returned to be CEO and in both cases they were highly ineffective.
Re: Au Revoir
#38It always amazes me how you can convince a founder/CEO is not right man for the job, and slowly push him away. Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. It might make feel the companies run smoother for some time, but day-to-day executives are harmful to a company core vision leading to boring companies if they manage to sustain profitability in the long run at all.
i guess it's a cycle. When a company needs to innovate to build its first iterations then the founder role is crucial, but then come the time of finding the best way to make money out of the product, and have a sustainable and well organized company. In that moment, (technical) founders find themselves a bit bored. The ideal would be for them to get back to pure R&D for a year or two, to discover more paths for the company's future. The problem is that carriers in a company only go one direction. Once you are a C-something the only way left is out.
Re: Au Revoir
#39Like a lot of tech folks, I've only interacted with Solomon on the internet, but in probably every interaction, I've come away from it feeling smarter, or more capable, going all the way back to the very early days of Dotcloud. I understand the realities of working in a corporation, and the demands on C-level executives, but it's hard to imagine any company that is improved by his departure from it. Fare well, Solomo…
Do you work for docker? If not, there's no need for farewells. It's not my impression that Solomon is leaving the planet :)
Re: Au Revoir
#40It always amazes me how you can convince a founder/CEO is not right man for the job, and slowly push him away. Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. It might make feel the companies run smoother for some time, but day-to-day executives are harmful to a company core vision leading to boring companies if they manage to sustain profitability in the long run at all.
Whereas effective leaders are required to manage not only the day-to-day, but turning the core vision into an actual business plan that can pay employees rather than just burn VC money. My experience is the opposite; I've worked at two companies where the founder has returned to be CEO and in both cases they were highly ineffective.
I'd concur, the generalization of one being better than the other just doesn't fit. I've worked for companies that fit into both situations and it really comes down to whether the founder had the skills to begin with or whether they were willing to admit that they needed help on the day-to-day operations & maintenance, etc.