[jakejake]

I think it's great that you take the high road and don't resort to dragging other people through the mud. You definitely seem to place the responsibility all on yourself, which I imagine is not always the full truth. Not providing any reason at all, actually makes it sound as if the two co-founders just randomly and completely bailed on you. (Which may be exactly the truth)

I was trying to imagine a logical scenario, for example they had an even better opportunity. Or perhaps it was better to split before the stakes became to high. Maybe the salaries were not going to be what was expected, there were disagreements on responsibilities, etc. I can imagine a lot of scenarios.

Not to diminish your article, which I found extremely interesting. It was just a point that definitely seems like there was a greater story to be told.

[majani]

Hacking learning institutions 101:

Step 1: Learn about their interview process

Step 2: Interview well and make it in

Step 3: Quit after a fair amount of time due to some plausible reason

Step 4: Carry around the signaling benefits of having attended the learning institution, without any of the pressure of finishing the course

This method has been successfully practised by Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and quite possibly, the 99dresses cofounders.

[barce]

Well, if you Google around, you get Peter Delahunty. It looks like he's gone from being a CTO at a few places (including 99dresses) to just working under a CTO. It looks like his strategy didn't pay off.

[onan_barbarian]

Confused that he doesn't list Posse on his LinkedIn page, if he's the guy you're talking about.

[jfoster]

Perhaps a good approach in this type of circumstance is to explicitly leave it unanswered. (eg. "both left for reasons that are not the point of this post")

[crassus]

I find it refreshing that we got this level of truth and detail from a startup post-mortem. The price for that transparency is selective opacity in a few still-sensitive areas. I get the deal.