anybody remembers the blogger code of ethics? what happened to it? what was its impact (if any)?
The start-up code of conduct and ethics
21–30 of 33 posts
Re: The start-up code of conduct and ethics
#22How many startups actually shut down? When I say shutdown I mean close the doors, unplug the servers, delete all code and walk away?
If there is any significant codebase, isn't that at least worth something? Sell it off to the highest bidder?
I think the open source clause under shutdowns is going to be rare.
Re: The start-up code of conduct and ethics
#23No offense, early adopters, but if you desire a SLA like this one from me, you'd better get moving because only one person will ever get one and my girlfriend looks like she is the odds-on favorite. This strikes me as optimizing for the somewhat quirky preference set of a group of people who do not pay money for software. (People who do pay money for software have an easy mechanism for determining what they are owed:…
It's voluntary :) People's revealed preference is that they do not care until they get bitten . And then they care very much. So we can and should do better than the bare minimum, and better than 'what users ask for' before they get bitten. That you do not care is a different story altogether, but consider that if you align your users' interests with your own that you probably stand a much better chance of success th…
When you use words like "code of conduct" and "this sort of integrity" assumptively, as you have here, you invite criticism for an idea that would otherwise be almost so universally accepted as to be anodyne.
On just a second reading, I see the following issues:
* 1.3.2 ("edit" information) will be construed as a mandate that information never be archived (it needs to be "live" to be edited). This is for instance an issue with Twitter, which does not make it easy to find (let alone edit) Tweets from last year.
* 1.6 (least information required) precludes business models that exchange lowered (or no) fees in exchange for user data.
* 2.2.1 puts, in a "startup code of ethics", legal roadblocks to selling companies (do you or I know what is or isn't legally reasonable to promise in something like this? In lots of cases, a lawsuit can easily kill a deal.
* 2.3 puts obligations on a hypothetical third party company to run an extra service
* 2.3.1 requires a six month shutdown notice, by which standard half the companies announced on HN would potentially be required to notify their users at launch.
* 2.3.2 requires, for no apparent reason, startups to open source their software at wind-down --- never mind the fact that most funded startups can't do that, since they don't own the code.
* 2.3.4 says, direct quote: "If our shutdown is involuntarily (for instance, because of bankruptcy) the bankruptcy trustee will be bound by these terms"
Actually here I just stopped reading.
If a startup launched with this in their promise to user signups, I'd laud them. But the person who tries to bind other startups to these ideas under the aegis of "this is what integrity means" probably deserves some flak.
Re: The start-up code of conduct and ethics
#24No offense, early adopters, but if you desire a SLA like this one from me, you'd better get moving because only one person will ever get one and my girlfriend looks like she is the odds-on favorite. This strikes me as optimizing for the somewhat quirky preference set of a group of people who do not pay money for software. (People who do pay money for software have an easy mechanism for determining what they are owed:…
Codes of Ethics are usually written to suit ideals, and not pragmatism. It's not expected that everyone will actually adhere to everything in a code of ethics---only that they would appreciate that these are "good things" in general, and try to implement them if they are practical.
That is not my understanding of what a "code of ethics" means.
Re: The start-up code of conduct and ethics
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's voluntary :) People's revealed preference is that they do not care until they get bitten . And then they care very much. So we can and should do better than the bare minimum, and better than 'what users ask for' before they get bitten. That you do not care is a different story altogether, but consider that if you align your users' interests with your own that you probably stand a much better chance of success th…
When you use words like "code of conduct" and "this sort of integrity" assumptively, as you have here, you invite criticism for an idea that would otherwise be almost so universally accepted as to be anodyne. On just a second reading, I see the following issues: * 1.3.2 ("edit" information) will be construed as a mandate that information never be archived (it needs to be "live" to be edited). This is for instance an…
Think of it as a starting point, a first rough version of what I think should be present in a code that binds start-ups to their users to balance the scales and to make sure that people that run companies realize that they have rights, but so do their users.
As for 'eating your own dogfood', I fully intend to subscribe all the services I run to the code of ethics, and I have absolutely no problem with that limiting my options.
And if your views on integrity do not coincide with mine that's perfectly ok, but it is really easy to hammer any idea into the ground, let's see your alternative, something that you think would be an improvement over the status quo that you would find acceptable.
Re: The start-up code of conduct and ethics
#26No offense, early adopters, but if you desire a SLA like this one from me, you'd better get moving because only one person will ever get one and my girlfriend looks like she is the odds-on favorite. This strikes me as optimizing for the somewhat quirky preference set of a group of people who do not pay money for software. (People who do pay money for software have an easy mechanism for determining what they are owed:…
I think you have mis-assessed: it's not the "early adopters" who want this, it's the mainstream.
I believe that if you achieve mainstream success with an important service--and appointment reminders are a lot more mission critical and time sensitive to small businesses than bingo cards to primary school teachers, so it may happen to you perhaps sooner than you realize--then you will have to adopt something like this.
If you leave your clothes at a dry cleaners or your car at an airport parking garage you expect to get them back. There are a number of well worked out rights and penalties to make sure that the business doesn't shut down on a few days notice and trash your property. Your customers' appointment reminder data has a non-trivial amount of value to their business. Finding ways to regularly export it or otherwise protect your customers from your failure is in your future if you are successful. Your contract does not do that currently but it will if you are successful.
Re: The start-up code of conduct and ethics
#27A one-size-fits-all is not going to work, I think. The correct model is probably something similar to the Creative Commons model -- create a few bundles of rights, let creators/site operators compose them, creating a 2x2 matrix of licenses or whatever. For instance: 1) Ownership of content/derived rights 2) Persistence of terms through exit (bankruptcy, sale, change of control...) 3) Revocability (can never, can easi…
That is a very good idea!
The creative commons comparison is a good idea. I wonder if you could put it into github, then people could just fork it, make their changes and use it. Just a thought.
Re: The start-up code of conduct and ethics
#28What are some typical contractual agreements for user data of an acquired startup, between the acquirer and the startup?
Re: The start-up code of conduct and ethics
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you use words like "code of conduct" and "this sort of integrity" assumptively, as you have here, you invite criticism for an idea that would otherwise be almost so universally accepted as to be anodyne. On just a second reading, I see the following issues: * 1.3.2 ("edit" information) will be construed as a mandate that information never be archived (it needs to be "live" to be edited). This is for instance an…
Think of it as a starting point, a first rough version of what I think should be present in a code that binds start-ups to their users to balance the scales and to make sure that people that run companies realize that they have rights, but so do their users. As for 'eating your own dogfood', I fully intend to subscribe all the services I run to the code of ethics, and I have absolutely no problem with that limiting m…
Jacquesm: Just to illustrate how you have a tendency to Specify unreasonable upfront restrictions, your own code prohibits you from correcting some of these errors in your code. Even though this is an 0.1 version, it requires all future versions to be equally or more restrictive. So you will have to live with your "first rough version" forever.
That is exactly as stupid as promising to keep the 0.1 version of your api active forever no matter what even if a serious security vulnerability is discovered.
Re: The start-up code of conduct and ethics
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think of it as a starting point, a first rough version of what I think should be present in a code that binds start-ups to their users to balance the scales and to make sure that people that run companies realize that they have rights, but so do their users. As for 'eating your own dogfood', I fully intend to subscribe all the services I run to the code of ethics, and I have absolutely no problem with that limiting m…
Jacquesm: Just to illustrate how you have a tendency to Specify unreasonable upfront restrictions, your own code prohibits you from correcting some of these errors in your code. Even though this is an 0.1 version, it requires all future versions to be equally or more restrictive. So you will have to live with your "first rough version" forever. That is exactly as stupid as promising to keep the 0.1 version of your ap…
I think that an update of the first rough version before it is adopted for practical reasons is perfectly ok, but once adopted it should not be possible to water it down by adopting later versions. That opens the door to adopting a version without restrictions at all and that would render the whole thing pointless.
Keeping your API active if there are security vulnerabilities is interpreting the thing to the letter, the idea is that you will fix the vulnerability and that you will continue to provide the functionality at the same time. If there is an unreasonable conflict between the two (and I fail to see how that could be possible except for very contrived cases) then there probably will be a way to resolve that conflict to everybody's satisfaction.
I very much like RDL's idea: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2774133 , it solves some of the problems without introducing any new ones.
And it allows for a partial adoption, which is really neat.