and while I am at it they dont pay for "exclusive access" to the startups plans either, there is an entire week at which you can ask the startup any questions you like.
whether having an open or closed investor day is the best solution I certainly dont know, but I am pretty sure the motives arent as insidious as implied
its like complaining that I wasnt allowed in the room when pg / jessica interviewed and decided on the yc teams, there are 2 other events much more along the lines of demo day later on.
What if pg/jessica had allowed a bunch of people to sit through interviews? Then, some administrative staff decides to kick out one guy.
That would be a more accurate description from what I read here(based on the OP + Seedcamp's response).
Philosophicals--like whether investors should be in the room or not--are totally irrelavant here. What matters is what was promised and whether Seedcamp broke that promise for one individual(for whatever reason).
It seems like Seedcamp has too many cooks in the kitchen. The whole idea of having "official" mentors seems to have backfired here. You have a mentor complaining that investors are treated better than them. The solution to that is to get rid of this whole "mentor" label.
You never hear much about weekly YC speakers. That YC keeps it a low key affair is telling I think.
since the format is more formal than a sit down interview I imagine they didnt want to disrupt a team half way through a presentation to ask someone to leave.
It sounds from Saul's post that this is part of the package for mentors and that Seedcamp was on the wrong.
Source: http://blog.seedcamp.com/2009/09/and-winners-areseedcamp-con...
£50,000!? Can anyone else confirm this?