Technotranscendence wrote:
> On Saturday, September 16, 2000 3:17 PM Emlyn emlyn@one.net.au wrote:
> > failed, and; 8) Hire a mix of old and young including some people near the
> > top who have already tasted startup success.
>
> Just out of curiousity, show of hands: How many here have worked or are
> working for startups? I've worked for two so far.
Four here: one failed (they're still in business - I think - but not
for much longer), two promising (one with stock options, one with just
plain stock, both of which may be going IPO within a year), and one
successful (got sustainable, but decided not to go IPO; the result is a
bit convulted, but a win for me in the end).
> That said, would any here be willing to work at a start with others on the
> list? This is based on what you already know -- assuming no one on the list
> is representing a hand they're not holding.:)
Depends on other factors (for instance, skill sets). As you may be able
to tell, I am trying to come up with a way to turn some of the things we
discuss into reality, and have latched onto business (which necessarily
implies at least going through a startup phase) as the most likely path.
A hundred engineers plus one sales person does not a company make; and
(for example) a hundred computer engineers plus zero people with
extensive knowledge of biology and/or of people who use said knowledge
daily does not a biotech company make (see the failure above).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:19 MDT