You know, as a technical co-founder I honestly hope I never encounter your "type" as things progress through stages of a company. Have you talked to him about it at all and gotten his point of view?
You have to understand that when he first started the company, it was him hustling and grinding away to even get it to where you could even be hired. Without this co-founder the company was literally NOTHING. This isn't to excuse his performance or the implications, but I feel like you're severely lacking some respect for the situation. As a company grows the role of the founder starts to change. And he should recognize that there are specializations and areas that he's lacking in, which is why he's looking to diversify the team in the first place.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best at certain tasks, but I'll be damned if some engineer I've hired comes in and wants me "fired" because they are somehow better at doing a certain task than I am when that's the exact damn reason I've hired them. It's one thing if he's grossly incompetent and actively harming the company, but what you seem to be describing isn't the case.
If you're first thought is that he should be fired because of his programming chops aren't as good as yours then I think you're missing the entire point. The CEO has already acknowledged the situation and offering solutions that you all can mutually work together with. Is it compensation? Or just this perception that the CTO must be the better than you to respect his decisions?
You have to understand that when he first started the company, it was him hustling and grinding away to even get it to where you could even be hired. Without this co-founder the company was literally NOTHING. This isn't to excuse his performance or the implications, but I feel like you're severely lacking some respect for the situation. As a company grows the role of the founder starts to change. And he should recognize that there are specializations and areas that he's lacking in, which is why he's looking to diversify the team in the first place.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best at certain tasks, but I'll be damned if some engineer I've hired comes in and wants me "fired" because they are somehow better at doing a certain task than I am when that's the exact damn reason I've hired them. It's one thing if he's grossly incompetent and actively harming the company, but what you seem to be describing isn't the case.
If you're first thought is that he should be fired because of his programming chops aren't as good as yours then I think you're missing the entire point. The CEO has already acknowledged the situation and offering solutions that you all can mutually work together with. Is it compensation? Or just this perception that the CTO must be the better than you to respect his decisions?
/rant