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.
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.
If two founders can't agree on a critical decision, is the situation any better if they're 70/30 rather than 50/50? The person who "loses" will not feel good about it, and I think that feeling is compounded by the inequality in ownership. 50/50 drives you engage your partner in hard decisions and get to a solution you can both live with.
I would never go with 50/50. At the very least 51/49 or any form of (50+x)/(50-x). When you have 50/50 and problems arise, you get two founder tugging the boat in opposite directions eventually going nowhere.
9.) What would each cofounder rather be doing, if they could do anything at all in the world?
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, unless 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.
10.) What're your expectations regarding the amount of pressure you'll be putting on yourselves?
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.
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.
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.
The only time we took on a 3rd co-founder/partner turned out bad. So, maybe I'm just gun-shy.
You also have to address these questions with people you've known for a long time. They're just easier to address with people you've known for a long time :-)
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.
I think it's the ambiguity and uncertainty that bugs people.
I think of founders as the people who decide to do the startup. If they decide and then bring people on before they have gotten very far, I would consider those cofounders. There's a little bit of seniority difference but each person would be just as critical.
For instance, I've got a one-man startup GeekStack (http://geekstack.com). I'm the founder. I don't have much done, just organizing, planning, and a marketing website. I'm talking to some of my college friends about joining me, and at this point, they would be cofounders. If they outwork me or turn the project in a direction I hadn't thought of, I'd probably consider them equal founders. If they join me in 4 months when I have printed my first set of cards, they would be early employees. Does that help?
BTW, anyone with graphic design skills interested in making trading cards of CS heroes, my email's in my profile :)
The difference is that founder is singular, where co-founder is plural. I am a co-founder of a company because I co-founded it with another person. In my mind it has nothing to do with who's done what.
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.
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.
I posted the link with Gabor's name thinking many HN readers might appreciate the Xobni connection. Of course, I forgot that his domain was "gaborcselle.com" and that it would appear right next to the title in HN. So blame me, not him. :)
Yeah, it was interesting to see my name there (I didn't post this on Hacker News myself). I'm not quite on BillG's level yet - give me a few more years :-)
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.
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.