The problem: While there are potentially many great co-founders out there, you have no one to work with. This problem has two parts:
A) Not knowing enough people interested in startups.
B) Not knowing if people would make good or bad co-founders.
So this is certainly a step toward solving part A. The problem is it really does nothing toward solving part B, which is by far the hardest part of the puzzle.
I'm sitting here reading news.YC and there are comments from dozens of smart people, some of whom would make great co-founders and some wouldn't. The issue isn't for the most part isn't the fact that I don't know they exist; I know they all exist. The issue is a lack of identity.
If you want to solve the co-founder problem, the solution isn't to get a large amount of people interested in starting companies in the same room. The solution comes from getting them to know each other. This comes from two things:
A) Identity.
B) Interaction.
Identity is 10% what we say about ourselves, and 90% what others say about us based on previous actions. To solve the identity problem you need a way to either aggregate what others say about us or else shine light on previous actions. (Previous actions being anything from college degrees to old blog posts.)
Interaction comes from objects of sociability. Playing games. Breaking a loaf of fresh bread. Sharing a bottle of wine over dinner. A pot of tea. Solving hard problems together. Solving difficult problems together. etc.
Anyway, my point is that the website doesn't solve a problem. At best it is the first 10% of the solution that enables a few people with really good judgement to solve the problem themselves. More likely it encourages people to enter really dangerous territory and potentially get into a lot of trouble with people they barely know.
This points out an unexamined assumption on my part, which was 'getting a large amount of people interested in starting companies in the same room is bound to lead to interesting interactions'. I also assumed people would vet each other, but you're right, it would be more valuable to have other kinds of assessment available.
It sounds like you are saying that the interaction problem is best handled off-line, so is there any website that can really do that?
I recently joined a Meetup group in Baltimore and have already had some great interactions that way. There are far more technical people in my area than I had realized.
Think about it this way. PG built news.YC in large part to get to know people before committing to working with them. News.YC has relevant articles that you can comment on. PG could have just as easily built a site that let you upload your profile pic and interests.
The thing is, uploading a profile pic and interests wouldn't let PG know how smart you are or what your personality is like. On news.YC, users are literally creating their own identities through their interaction with the site and with each other. Furthermore, PG designed the site so that users would interact in a way that would reveal the aspects of their character that are most salient to knowing whether or not they'll build a successful startup or go out and blow his money on hookers and beer.
news.YC is the solution to PG's identity problem. However, the problem of whether or not to fund a group is very similar to the problem of knowing whether or not to work with someone. PG's a smart guy. Think about which parts of his solution are relevant to your problem, and go from there.
Ahh, that is a good direction for the site to go in I think.
My thinking is that YC's problem is mainly figuring out how likely people are to MSPW and how fun they will be to work with.
I am trying to think out how the co-founder problem differs from the YC problem, but I'm not sure which assumptions to use:
1) The productivity of the startup is mainly the sum of the traits of each individual. Plus, to a lesser extent, the synergies between them.
2) The productivity of the startup is mainly an emergent phenomenon that is difficult to predict from looking at either of the two co-founders alone. Plus, to a lessor extent, the traits of each individual. (For example, the output of someone working with Steve Jobs is different than their output in other circumstances.)
Whether it's more of case 1 or more of case 2 matters when figuring out in which direction to take the community, because in each case you are going to want a different systemic design to bring out the different salient factors. (Of course it could actually be case 1 for some startups and case 2 for other startups, which would make the problem even more difficult.)
"1) The productivity of the startup is mainly the sum of the traits of each individual. Plus, to a lesser extent, the synergies between them."
I would argue the synergies between cofounders to be the single most valuable entity in a partnership. You may have complementary skills but if you don't come together and are able to do incredible things that are spurred on by eachother. Spark is key - this linear trait argument isn't correct at all. Never compromise without spark.
You don't know by chatting with someone - best to work on something non trivial together and figure out if you get on.
This seems like it could be an interesting feature idea -- maybe I could include a way for people to solve a problem together after they introduce themselves?
drop....I've considered the Meetup thing myself. Which group or type specifically? In my area, there is a list of about 100 waiting for an entrepeneur's group to start (no one willing to pay the $20 required). I'd do it myself but looking at the waiting list, many seem to be small biz services, accounting, biz planning, or MaryK types.
I joined the entrepeneur meetup group and have been to one meeting; it was 3 people who were in business to cater to small businesses (like accountants and marketing people), and everyone else was technical, so it was a good experience for me. Those three nontechnical people were really good contacts to make. The list you're talking about doesn't sound too promising though.
A) Not knowing enough people interested in startups.
B) Not knowing if people would make good or bad co-founders.
So this is certainly a step toward solving part A. The problem is it really does nothing toward solving part B, which is by far the hardest part of the puzzle.
I'm sitting here reading news.YC and there are comments from dozens of smart people, some of whom would make great co-founders and some wouldn't. The issue isn't for the most part isn't the fact that I don't know they exist; I know they all exist. The issue is a lack of identity.
If you want to solve the co-founder problem, the solution isn't to get a large amount of people interested in starting companies in the same room. The solution comes from getting them to know each other. This comes from two things:
A) Identity.
B) Interaction.
Identity is 10% what we say about ourselves, and 90% what others say about us based on previous actions. To solve the identity problem you need a way to either aggregate what others say about us or else shine light on previous actions. (Previous actions being anything from college degrees to old blog posts.)
Interaction comes from objects of sociability. Playing games. Breaking a loaf of fresh bread. Sharing a bottle of wine over dinner. A pot of tea. Solving hard problems together. Solving difficult problems together. etc.
Anyway, my point is that the website doesn't solve a problem. At best it is the first 10% of the solution that enables a few people with really good judgement to solve the problem themselves. More likely it encourages people to enter really dangerous territory and potentially get into a lot of trouble with people they barely know.