The specific names of the three judging partners aren’t important (obviously) what is important though is that there is a tendency to provide those in position of power (generally, or in a given situation) with a layer of protection (by anonymity) that is not afforded to those whom they have power upon.
The omission caught my eye.
It reminded me that YC has this glaring asymmetry in other parts of the application process, specifically with the personal video they require people submit, but do not disclose who watched it.
I thought that if I say something, someone might ask a followup question, and I can bring that point above in a followup comment.
So again, thanks for asking ;)
P.S - the downvotes on the comment are worth it, obviously.
> The specific names of the three judging partners aren’t important (obviously) what is important though is that there is a tendency to provide those in position of power (generally, or in a given situation) with a layer of protection (by anonymity) that is not afforded to those whom they have power upon.
If the author hadn't posted about this experience, no one at YC would've made a public post saying they interviewed him.
Indeed, that would be a bit on the weird side if YC made a post saying "we spoke to someone from Checkly, his sense of humor was kinda funny."
Who? They are people, right? I have a name, you have a name, the three partners must also have names. Who were they?