[pm24601]

I am very experienced. Re: the number of "outsiders" - not as big a deal as you might believe. Good lawyering helps.

Its better to be considerate and balanced. The cliff only exists to protect against bad hiring decisions, 6 months is plenty enough time to figure out that someone is a bad fit.

You are correct about shares not being a very good tool for motivating people. Your suggestions about salary or sign-on bonuses are actually worse because that takes away from the working capital.

[tptacek]

You don't sound very experienced. I mean that factually, not as an insult. For what it's worth, I've been in "key" roles (lead engineering, founder, and m-team) since 1996; I've spent my whole career in startups. I am not making the horror stories up, and they've happened in places with extremely good "lawyering".

[pm24601]

There are always people with different experiences to learn from.

That said, 1 year cliff is an arbitrary period of time. 6 months is an arbitrary period as well.

Your statement about experience is fine. I have my own collection of experience.

In my experience, forcing a fit/retention decision about a new hire to be earlier is a good thing. I do this with a 6 month cliff.

When I look at the people I have had to fire, I always saw the handwriting on the wall by the 2nd-3rd month.

A 6-month cliff gives me and them a chance to correct the issue.

Yes I could do this review process with a 1-year cliff. The 6-month cliff makes sure the issue is addressed consistently early after a new hire joins.

So if after 6-months I know I want to keep the person, why not say it with a stock plan?

Conversely, if the goal is to reduce the number of outsiders with stock:

  * do you then support a 2-year cliff?
  * a 5-year vesting schedule?

If going earlier than a year cliff is bad then, using your argument, going longer must be better.