I read the article, thanks very much, and it was completely unclear to me as well.

There's a lacuna between these two sentences:

> After confirming it would be an incredible fit while importantly allowing me to continue my work on elementary, I made the hard decision to cut back my hours at elementary, eliminate my salary (freeing it up for other initiatives), and to take this position for my wage.

> As a result, Dani has asked me to resign and completely step away from elementary.

In other words "I took a job with the idea that I would free up my salary while continuing to work on the project... then Dani asked me not to work on the project at all". The second part does not follow from the first. Either it's poorly told, or something has been left out of the story.

These two make sense to me?

One person didn’t discuss their plans with the other, and thought it would be fine to retain their shares after they got another job for the sake of the company (this sounds reasonable to me, by the time you choose to cut insurance benefits it’s time to think of a different solution).

The other felt it was unfair to retain any shares if you weren’t actively (full-time?) working on the company. Kind of funny, seeing how this would have pretty much guaranteed sinking the ship.

Absolutely. This is a response to the other co-founder's similarly one-sided post a few weeks ago. I don't think either of them come out looking good here.

I assume the lacuna is filled with lawyers who said not to discuss that part.

It is still a pretty unexpected reaction. Cassidy had worked for System76 and did elementary work in his free time before. Sad to see this.

There was another article posted a month or so back with the other founders perspective. As an outsider, Cassidy seems to be the more reasonable of the two, but I can't know that for sure when viewing the whole situation through a peephole. https://lunduke.substack.com/p/elementary-os-is-imploding?s=...

Yeah just read that. Lunduke is apparently purposefully misgendering and dead naming Danielle Foré in that article, which is important context. But the tweets are still good background.

My main takeaway: always have a pre-nup.

Lunduke has a long history of using negative clickbait titles (the Linux sucks series and HTTPS is bad) to gain views. I'm not surprised that he has somehow found a way to milk this controversy too!

> $30k now, $70k over the next 10 years, and to keep 5% share

This is not a large amount of money and seems very, very fair for giving up 50% equity.

I read the article, and that was my take away. I just re-read it and stand by my comment.