[GuiA]

You built a great team of a whopping four persons over two years using serendipity, congrats.

As you're starting to maybe realize, this approach doesn't scale.

You think you're special, that your employee requirements are way higher than any other startup's, because you're just that amazing and world changing. Mathematically, you're probably not, and every startup out there thinks the exact same.

Ultimately, you're going to have to suck it up and just hire people who can do the job. Those emotional stories about how Koding came together are great— you want to "date" (what a silly word, but let's reuse it) your founders. But wanting to build a full team like that is just delusional. There's only one "best engineer I've ever met" in the world.

Some reading for you:

http://careercarrot.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/looking-for-roc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem

[nkurz]

I'm not sure. They sound happy and optimistic, whereas you sound cynical and jaded. Perhaps they have different goals. And while the solution to the secretary problem is well worth the understanding, I'm not sure how applicable it is:

  1. There is a single secretarial position to fill.
  2. There are n applicants for the position, and 
     the value of n is known.
  3. The applicants, if seen altogether, can be ranked
     from best to worst unambiguously.
  4. The applicants are interviewed sequentially in random
     order, with each order being equally likely.
  5. Immediately after an interview, the interviewed 
     applicant is either accepted or rejected, and the
     decision is irrevocable.
  6. The decision to accept or reject an applicant can be
     based only on the relative ranks of the applicants 
     interviewed so far.
  7. The objective is to select the best applicant with the
     highest possible probability.

Is this really how you do your hiring? I won't argue with 1 through 6, but I find that 7 doesn't factor in the danger of a really bad fit. So I always take the second to last candidate to cut my losses. :)

[GuiA]

>They sound happy and optimistic, whereas you sound cynical and jaded.

Well of course, they're founders so they have to be happy and optimistic, and as an engineer in SV I get people like them wanting to recruit me every day so I have to be cynical and jaded :)

I think the secretary problem applies very much. Ultimately, they're looking with people that a) have relevant skills and b) will fit in the culture.

If, as they claim, they tried all conventional methods of hiring over the past few months (and they have actually met a significant number of people and not just two guys at a random meetup), then they are probably unrealistic in their expectations. Ultimately, past your first or second engineer, you're looking for someone to get shit done, not someone to braid your hair with.

[devrim]

@GulA Thanks for your wisdom (let's reuse this typical i-know-it-all-and-you-dont approach). We're not scaling, if you read the post carefully, you will see that we're looking for the 5th member, and the word 'best' is used correctly. I won't provide additional reading for you, because I don't think you will read them.

[GuiA]

I never said you were scaling. I said that your approach to hiring won't scale.

Right now your approach to hiring is the same as your approach to finding co-founders. Are you saying you're essentially looking for a 5th cofounder?

[devrim]

Basically yes. After 10th hire, nobody can hire with a blog post like this, for reasons you've stated, plus, there won't be room for co-founder minded, entrepreneurial folks anymore.