Yeah, LTS is quite different from the others. It's the only one which can't be retracted, btw. A startup should only commit to LTS if they're willing to keep the funds aside to keep the service running for existing users for X years (they can close off new registrations or whatever - it's just a commitment to existing users - they could even fully pivot just so long as they keep the legacy system running alongside).
You're right that the system is no way foolproof, I do think it's an improvement over the current situation though, and a step towards more accountability.
It's really just based on trust - like how many people now distrust Facebook over privacy issues (even though Facebook never really promised anything). If a founder were to commit to these pledges, then go and break them, they could probably expect a similar type of distrust in their future ventures.
I've kept thinking about this because I feel like I'm being overly critical of your idea - but I equally don't think skepticism toward the claims of startup founders is particularly unhealthy.
I suspect it's a case of messaging - and as you said trust. If I were looking at a startup of yours, knowing you were OP here, and saw those pledges I feel like I'd take them seriously. If I saw them on a typical landing page I'd probably dismiss them. That said I guess a founder who can hope to follow through on these should probably be able to control their messaging and convince me.
On another note though I'm not convinced it'd really affect future ventures - I don't think that outside the SV/HN bubble people really know or care who founders of startups/companies are. I suspect if you took a typical Series A startup most of its users would probably have as much chance of knowing its investors as its founders.
That definitely doesn't make it pointless though - I think it was a mistake for me to call it that. It's a case of messaging and trust and I suspect most startups would fail the litmus test of convincing me they mean anything.
Comments
Yeah, LTS is quite different from the others. It's the only one which can't be retracted, btw. A startup should only commit to LTS if they're willing to keep the funds aside to keep the service running for existing users for X years (they can close off new registrations or whatever - it's just a commitment to existing users - they could even fully pivot just so long as they keep the legacy system running alongside).
You're right that the system is no way foolproof, I do think it's an improvement over the current situation though, and a step towards more accountability.
It's really just based on trust - like how many people now distrust Facebook over privacy issues (even though Facebook never really promised anything). If a founder were to commit to these pledges, then go and break them, they could probably expect a similar type of distrust in their future ventures.
I've kept thinking about this because I feel like I'm being overly critical of your idea - but I equally don't think skepticism toward the claims of startup founders is particularly unhealthy.
I suspect it's a case of messaging - and as you said trust. If I were looking at a startup of yours, knowing you were OP here, and saw those pledges I feel like I'd take them seriously. If I saw them on a typical landing page I'd probably dismiss them. That said I guess a founder who can hope to follow through on these should probably be able to control their messaging and convince me.
On another note though I'm not convinced it'd really affect future ventures - I don't think that outside the SV/HN bubble people really know or care who founders of startups/companies are. I suspect if you took a typical Series A startup most of its users would probably have as much chance of knowing its investors as its founders.
That definitely doesn't make it pointless though - I think it was a mistake for me to call it that. It's a case of messaging and trust and I suspect most startups would fail the litmus test of convincing me they mean anything.