Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Basecamp Blew Up

platformer.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#721

Post by foobiter »

listless wrote: post #276
Tainnor wrote: post #124

Honestly, in this story everyone looks like a big child. I would maybe be more sympathetic to DHH if it wasn't the guy who was so opinionated he pushed through Rails features that everyone else disliked or co-wrote several books on company culture that are glorified ads for basecamp (although "it doesn't have to be crazy at work" is still a thought-provoking read, at least in part). I can only imagine that he might b…

This is exactly what I thought. None of this story makes much sense on an adult level. You have a list of customer names that you mock? What kind of amateur, disrespectful operation are you running? Are you building a product or pledging a fraternity? And how does any of that lead to talking about "White Supremacy". And how does voicing an opinion about such a subject seem like a good idea for the workplace regardles…

it’s not just the list, there were known racism issues with their head of product too… they deleted years of internal discussion and asked him to keep his opinions quiet (he deleted his tweets earlier this year around the time the d&i committee started) to avoid dealing with it directly

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#722

Post by ryanbrunner »

nikolay wrote: post #365
CydeWeys wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because something might be legal doesn't make it a good idea to do it.

What's a good and a bad idea is very subjective. Let them run their business the way they want! Pretty much everywhere else in the world political polemics are not allowed at work as they can divide the workforce and some people could feel harassed by hearing non-work-related stuff they wholeheartedly disagree with!

Sure, but part of the consequences of making horrible decisions is that you're going to lose 30% of your employees. Any business leader can do what they like with their business, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be immune to criticism or that they have a god-given right for their employees not to quit.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#723

Post by CydeWeys »

nikolay wrote: post #365
CydeWeys wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because something might be legal doesn't make it a good idea to do it.

What's a good and a bad idea is very subjective. Let them run their business the way they want! Pretty much everywhere else in the world political polemics are not allowed at work as they can divide the workforce and some people could feel harassed by hearing non-work-related stuff they wholeheartedly disagree with!

Seeing as how the context of this discussion in an article titled "How Basecamp Blew Up", I think it's pretty safe to say it was in fact a bad idea.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#724

Post by ramraj07 »

jarek83 wrote: post #675

I'm among those with mixed feelings. - list of funny names that is kept in some persistent form and circulates the company with full acknowledgment of the head people: Childish and extremely unprofessional, but still a typical mistake rather than a colossal disaster; - politics and racism issue: looks like typical misunderstanding but on a very fragile subjects. Very easy to get into drama scenarios with this mix. Ve…

You’re missing a crucial bit that changes everything: one of the earliest employees is ostensibly a very, very right leaning person who made super questionable comments unprompted in the townhall, and refused to acknowledge racism as a concept could exist in companies. And one of the founders just couldn’t say anything that would have helped in that moment.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#725

Post by antoniuschan99 »

ashtonkem wrote: post #627
antoniuschan99 wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also content marketing (both the blog and books)

Yes, it can be that too. I’m just saying that you’ve got to take positive steps towards where they’re at, culturally. It’s not an accident, even if there is certainly some luck and mixed motives.

In their case though, their Books, Company (and lesser extent Rails), and Personal Brand are all intertwined.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#726

Post by jarek83 »

ramraj07 wrote: post #724
jarek83 wrote: post #675

I'm among those with mixed feelings. - list of funny names that is kept in some persistent form and circulates the company with full acknowledgment of the head people: Childish and extremely unprofessional, but still a typical mistake rather than a colossal disaster; - politics and racism issue: looks like typical misunderstanding but on a very fragile subjects. Very easy to get into drama scenarios with this mix. Ve…

You’re missing a crucial bit that changes everything: one of the earliest employees is ostensibly a very, very right leaning person who made super questionable comments unprompted in the townhall, and refused to acknowledge racism as a concept could exist in companies. And one of the founders just couldn’t say anything that would have helped in that moment.

To be honest, it's hard to judge this just by reading this article. They only way to have own word on this matter would be to take part in the company meetings. Check his email after he departed - for him it was misunderstanding. What if that was actual misunderstanding?

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#727

Post by wyclif »

etchalon wrote: post #697
wyclif wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree fundamentally with your take because I approach this subject academically instead of in pop culture terms. Both blacks and whites have distinct ethnic groups that are more granular. Just as whites are ethnically English, Irish, German, Scandinavian, Italian, etc., blacks are ethnically Akan, Cuban, Caribbean, Abyssian, Fulani, Zulu, Oromo, and more.

If you approached the subject academically, you’d have an informed take on it.

My take is informed. Which one of those ethnicities do you believe I made up? Those are real people and real ethnic categories.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#728

Post by jleyank »

jjeaff wrote: post #501
1123581321 wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This misconduct happens regardless of the demographics. It just depends on how much abuse and vitriol management allows and encourages.

My point was that i find it laughable that any white man will have a hard time getting a job in the tech industry because he is white considering there isn't a tech company i have ever known that wasn't mostly white guys working there. Maybe wait until white guys make up less than 75% of the workforce in your industry before you start complaining about descrimination.

Might want to qualify this statement to take those whose ages start with a 4, 5 or even a 6 into consideration. Or are these people already invisible?

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#729

Post by DocTomoe »

otde wrote: post #499
s__s wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you really misread that and defaulted to an overly defensive and negative stance.

On what planet does “I may need to put on a dress” not read as “if I pretend to be trans, I’ll have an easier time getting a job?” “Pretending to be trans for (reason)” is a really really common way to mock trans people and I think you know that.

At what point does a mock become acceptable?

Even today there are companies, especially in the tech startup scene, which actively discriminate against "cisgender white males". It is extremely likely that even today, people put on the mask of the currently favoured sexual identity to land a job. Not to mock trans people, just to get ahead in life.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#730

Post by shagie »

etchalon wrote: post #465
freddie_mercury wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that many employees think they can get another, comparable, job quickly then that is implicitly saying Basecamp's overall compensation package (including how interesting the work is, extra time off in summer, profit sharing, etc, etc) isn't actually especially unique or valuable. Which kind of says something not great about Basecamp in and of itself.

They also made their overall compensation package a lot loss less attractive with 10% profit sharing as a replacement for lifestyle subsidies.

So... hypothetically... (these may or may not be actual basecamp things - I don't know)

> 50% off a gym membership

But I already have a home gym. Will the company give me a check to help pay for my next piece of equipment? Why do I have to go into town to the gym to make use of this benefit?

> Reimbursement of 25% off of Community Supported Agriculture

I've got an orchard with more apples and pears than I know what to do with each year. I consider rhubarb to almost be a weed at this point. I get free eggs from my neighbor (and honey too - helps with the aforementioned apples and pears). Could I get 25% off my next fruit tree purchase instead?

---

Such benefits are entirely missed on me. I wouldn't take advantage of them and so they're not serving the purpose of the company to entice me to stay. They also are a little bit disdainful in that other people (yea, I know... the "someone else is getting something I'm not" is a hard thing to excise from the mind) are getting extra benefits/bonuses/perks that I'm not able to take advantage of.

A 10% profit sharing? Even if its worth "less" than those are previously offered - it's worth more to me.

Post reply on HN