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.
Re:Farewell, Elementary
by alexjurkiewicz on Friday April 01, 2022 @07:11PM
(#30884253)
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.
Re:Farewell, Elementary
by JasonFruit on Friday April 01, 2022 @09:45PM
(#30885165)
I assume the lacuna is filled with lawyers who said not to discuss that part.
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.