Fowler's post shed light on Uber's serious internal problems -- no doubt. But going public with a post like this erodes founder-investor trust. It's across the line.
Publicly condemning the internal culture the post depicted would be reasonable, even helpful, but trying to "expose" Uber's leadership for showmanship and posturing ('hiring' Holder who was ostensibly involved long-before the Fowler post) to mitigate the pr fallout is counterproductive. Don't kick your founder when he's down.
> Don't stick by your founders if they are creating horrible environments, such as Uber's, and are unwilling to make up for their mistakes.
If more investors had this sort of backbone founders might feel more accountability and not let these situations happen in the first place.
This would be at the expense of bad founders losing trust with their investors? Great. The good founders will be glad that the Kapor's stood up for what is right, and know that they will never be placed in the same situation themselves because they trust their own moral compasses.
Maybe I'm not parsing your comments correctly, but it seems like you're claiming that Uber has a real cultural problem and that problem is endemic to tech in the Valley (if not in general) -- but you're arguing that confronting those in positions of power or leadership is unfair to them?
Publicly condemning the internal culture the post depicted would be reasonable, even helpful, but trying to "expose" Uber's leadership for showmanship and posturing ('hiring' Holder who was ostensibly involved long-before the Fowler post) to mitigate the pr fallout is counterproductive. Don't kick your founder when he's down.