[riazrizvi]

It feels like her role is an auxiliary function, like Office Manager or QA, so I think her generic analysis works. If her role was central to the business, then I don't think she would be valuing her contribution with a one-liner like 'Employee’s value-add to the company (I used 15%, which I think is pretty low!)'. Instead the question of her value-add would be the starting/central point of the negotiation.

[tptacek]

Huh? Nobody offers .5% equity to an "office manager" or "QA". She says in the post her role is "Director".

Michelle is an enterprise software consultant with an engineering background.

[riazrizvi]

then, wow, she's getting screwed.

[btilly]

She's married to a co-founder.

If she thinks that she's increasing the odds of a successful exit, then below market compensation could be financially worthwhile for that reason alone.

[taybin]

Her twitter account says she's an engineer. What makes you think her role is Office Manager or QA?

[colmvp]

Not to mention her current salary is 140k (after bonuses), which I think would be quite a bit above what most office managers and QA people make.

[dkador]

Probably because she's a woman and people here can be very sexist?

[wetzler]

It'd be pretty strange for a startup's first hire to be an office manager ;-)