the board of overseers has a lighter touch perhaps but also the executive guillotine. even if the latter power is exercised rarely, the will of the overseers is final authority. to be sure the current overseers deserve no doubt in their moral commitment to YC, but as YC grows in influence, wealth, prestige and power, so too do its overseers, and the shadow of moral hazard darkens. actions impossible yesterday become intolerable today and invisible tomorrow.
as someone who cares about the future of YC, i am glad that a mechanism is in place to guard the integrity of the YC president, and i wonder mechanisms are in place to guard the integrity the YC board.
"but as YC grows in influence, wealth, prestige and power, so too do its overseers, and the shadow of moral hazard darkens. actions impossible yesterday become intolerable today and invisible tomorrow."
I feel like that should be a quote from a Harry Potter novel.
Yes, I mean a moral hazard in the sense of a divergence of best interests between YC and an overseer.
of all the leadership structures YC has experimented with, the board of overseers seems least proportional in terms of the power of the body and its investment in YC. consider the prior era of YC where all rewards and losses in both finance and reputation fell upon PG and Jessica. once sama became president, he put skin in the game in by staking his professional reputation on YC's success.
i pose the concern of moral hazard because one piece of information has yet to be made public: how board members are impacted by YC's success or failure.
Interesting that this board seems to be constitued by the founders of some of the most successful YC startups (Airbnb, Homejoy, Stripe, Dropbox, Weebly, Twitch)
True. I'm just identifying the model. They also need not be mutually exclusive. You want the intersection of helpful, ethical and successful. If you're missing on any of them, you probably won't be helpful. I think financially minded organizations tend to lean more on the success since it's easier to measure.
"I'm personally excited about: YC as a university"
YC isn't a university (today) and I don't see a particular reason it should try to model itself in that fashion so as to draw comparisons. It's a different entity in itself and should try to foster that new category rather than try to compete in an existing category for attention and/or respect.
It's worth noting that YC's characteristics are slowly creeping into university territory. Facets and characteristics that make YC and universities successful:
- Strong alumni endowment (both capital and mentoring)
- Reliant heavily on personal networks and connections to vet at scale
- Critical of personal merit on application process
- Application process are almost identical (mostly criticized on paper, followed by a very short interview)
Couple all of this with the reality that:
- Many famous tech entrepreneurs are known for dropping out of school (Zuck, Gates, etc)
- Peter Thiel (and the PayPal mafia) are on a mission to fund children and have them skip uni
- pg's view of university life as a model for allowing smart people the time and freedom to create innovative new products.
I don't disagree that they are different entities, but in perhaps viewing through a particular lens, one could argue that there is little that separates how they behave at scale.
Food for thought -- let's negate the application process for a second -- if you're a parent, would you send your child to a university that will cost $150k with no guarantee (but high likelihood) of a job afterward or would you rather drop $150k into your son/daughter's startup to then be advised by some of the most successful modern day business people. I mean, life isn't all about working, but, well, it is.
He retired, for some definition of retired. He's letting the new team run the ship. That said, I'm sure he's still virtually on the board of directors and if he really felt passionate about something that it would get done.
He's clearly above this board and could get rid of all of them if he wanted to. I think all involved know and understand that, and hope it never has to happen.
I think that's incorrect. Overseer is generally a term the English use when referring to administration of the poor. Not sure if it's still in use today.
[1] A supervisor or superintendent; one who keeps watch over and directs the work of others, often in the context of forced labor or slavery
[2] In law, a person appointed by the testator to supervise or assist the executor(s) of a will (mostly obsolete)
[3] Overseer of the Poor, an official who administered poor relief
It's muddled at best, but the usage in reference to a supervisory role in a professional context [1] is distinct from what you allude to [3], and [1] has the qualifier "often in the context of forced labor or slavery".
Wait, Sam Altman is both the YC president and on the Board of Overseers. If the board is responsible for both hiring/firing the president, how does that work?
The same way a CEO sits on the Board of Directors which is also responsible for both hiring/firing the CEO/President. Meaning that if fired he will be removed from the board meeting and/or he will have to recuse himself from meetings discussing his role as President.
Hard to imagine that PG doesn't have sway over what the board decides if he should so desire. Obviously. But he can defer to the board in day to day and use it to his advantage. (Remember Godfather 1 "Michael's in charge now".) So playing the card will be a rare occurrence but possible.
