This is a strong set of questions. The only one that didn't ring true was #8, ownership. For a two-founder company, I strongly believe that 50/50 is the correct structure. Anything less breeds long-term ill will.<p>What if, as Gabor notes, contributions are unequal? For early stage startups and minor disparities, I'd say skip it and still go with 50/50. The amount of future contribution (and potential for conflict) by both parties will be huge compared to than what's already been done. If someone really is coming to the table with a vastly larger contribution to the company, and intends to bring on a co-founder, I'd challenge the pair to very carefully consider whether the second person is a founder or a highly compensated key employee.
9.) What would each cofounder rather be doing, if they could do anything at all in the world?<p>This was an issue with my last startup. We started with 5 founders, but for 3 of them, the answer was "my day job", and we had to get rid of them at an early stage. My other cofounder was very upfront with me from the beginning - he was all in with this particular startup, <i>unless</i> he got into Stanford or Harvard Business School. Well, he got into Harvard, and that was the end of that partnership. For me - I probably would not have abandoned my partner, but once he'd already left, I folded the startup when I had the chance to work with a YC startup, even though I didn't end up taking the cofounder position with them.<p>10.) What're your expectations regarding the amount of pressure you'll be putting on yourselves?<p>This is more than just working hours - it's also how seriously you beat yourselves up when you miss a deadline or things don't go your way. It's really important to find someone who's compatible with you on this; a laid-back person and a neurotic one working together tends to lead to a lot of conflict.<p>Windows auto-update is kicking me off now, but I may think of more in the morning.
The whole concept of interviewing someone and deciding to be an active co-founder with them seems odd to me. Almost like asking a girl to marry you after dating for a month.<p>I guess it can work out if you cover the right bases. From my experience, my co-founder relationship is great because we've been friends since high-school and we complement each other well.<p>The only time we took on a 3rd co-founder/partner turned out bad. So, maybe I'm just gun-shy.
One thing I really hate is "co-founder." I like "founders" better. Because before you know it, there's a "founder" and then there's "co-founders", and its all kind of bullshit over nothing (except money, and the sudden appearance of unwritten liquidation preferences, and the long slow road to self-destruction that those things breed). I don't really have a problem with equity being split asymmetrically, but I think everything else should be fair and proportional.
It's slightly irritating when a name is put beside a post, and I don't see any reason why this person is supposed to be famous. And the site is very focused on whoever that is.<p>If you write good content, let it stand for itself, and don't try to sell yourself together with your content. Sooner or later, people will turn against you.
equity should also be split to reward risk taken. if the downside for one founder is much higher than for the other, he should be rewarded more. e.g. one co-founder can easily go back to college or consulting whereas the other really has to make the startup work or else. all with appropriate vesting, of course.
My favorite question:<p>Under what circumstances would you do a spontaneous "happy dance" without even realizing it?<p>My personal answer:<p>1. When something really cool that I wrote runs for the first time.<p>2. When the Pittsburgh Steelers score a touchdown.<p>Knowing what <i>really turns someone on</i> tells you a lot about them.