Is github justified in suspending homakov or is it just a case of killing the whistleblower.
Ask HN:Did github deal with homakov appropriately
1–6 of 6 posts
Re: Ask HN:Did github deal with homakov appropriately
#2Yep, justified. He could have simply told them about it. In my experience, Github is proactive about security and general usability of the service. There is no reason to think they would have dismissed him out of hand. The right thing to do was to give them a chance to fix it.
He acted like a bit of a dick, so they gave him the flick. Bad luck.
Re: Ask HN:Did github deal with homakov appropriately
#3AFAIK he did warn them about it, and they did nothing. His actions are a bit childish but he did no harm. Plus he brought shitload of attention to them which isn't a bad thing. It's totally understandable they suspended his account but if they want their reputation restored, they better contact him and sort this out together.
Re: Ask HN:Did github deal with homakov appropriately
#4He violated the TOS, if they didn't suspend him I would question hosting anything with them.
Re: Ask HN:Did github deal with homakov appropriately
#5He violated the TOS, if they didn't suspend him I would question hosting anything with them.
If they suspended everyone who could be suspended under the TOS no one could host anything with them.
Re: Ask HN:Did github deal with homakov appropriately
#6homokov could have handled this much better than he did, and I don't think anyone is arguing against that. He did break the terms of the service, and he did it by committing to an active project rather than just creating a dummy account for a proof of concept. That proof of concept would have made the front page of this site in no time, so it's not a matter of exposure. Github is completely "in the right" for their decision, yet it was still a bad one.
The simple fact that this discussion is occurring shows that they didn't deal with it "appropriately". They are completely in the moral right- he violated terms, and even if he didn't it's still their website. However, they completely failed from a business and public relations perspective- if your actions result in a bunch of people being pissed off at you (particularly when those people are your active and vocal users) then you messed up. They had a huge opportunity here educate people about how to report these things, and lay the ground work to suspend people in the future, but they chose to lash out instead.