Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Difficult Situation

blog.sendgrid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 485 posts

Re: A Difficult Situation

#151

Post by seivan »

eridius wrote: post #147
powertower wrote: post #98

They need to update that statement with the fact that the joke was not about her, nor directed at her. Their statement leaves that very important part out, making the reader think otherwise - that she was the victim. At the same time (or around that time) this was happening, here is a conversation she was having - http://i.imgur.com/nRC5J7f.png Another gem from years ago - http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c I'd imagine she was…

Can people please stop bringing up that tweet? It has absolutely nothing to do with what happened at PyCon. Whatever she says on her own personal twitter feed is wholly unrelated to what happens at a professional event. Especially since the only people who see her tweet are people that have explicitly chosen to do so (either by following her or by following someone's link to it). What is acceptable in an opt-in scena…

Character flaw.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#152

Post by _delirium »

14113 wrote: post #146
_delirium wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the criminals caused the criminal activity. If I publish a book, and you engage in criminal retaliation against my publisher for having published it, I am not the person causing crime. Not even if your excuse was that you really hated the book. And it is no credit to the publisher if they give in to the thugs.

I think you're confusing cause and execution. Socio-economic problems are often the cause of violent crime, but muggers execute it. To use your metaphor of an author and publisher, if I (as an author) published a reasoned, well argued novella arguing a religion was hateful and bigoted, and my publisher received death threats, would I not be causing the death threats? Regardless of the legitimacy or accuracy of my pub…

An interesting question. I think in an ethical sense, there would be no blame to someone like Richard Dawkins for publishing an anti-religious book. I do agree there could be a causal link: Dawkins's university or publisher might receive threats as a result of his atheist advocacy. But who is really to blame for these threats? I would argue it is the people who would make threats in response to atheist advocacy who are to blame, and all effort should be put towards shutting such people down.

And does it mean I would support, as an ethical matter, Dawkins's publisher or university choosing to drop him, on the grounds that he has caused them difficulties, and they are therefore right in firing him to solve them? Obviously not: I would blame those making threats, and would consider his publisher and university spineless cowards if they dropped him as an author or fired him as an employee in response to the threats. I would expect them, rather, to expend their efforts tracking down the people who made the threats.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#153

Post by dinkumthinkum »

Proleps wrote: post #64
nilkn wrote: post #26

Even if I agree with the decision, this is incredibly hard to read. I hate to see someone lose their job over something like this. Yet I can't disagree with anything he wrote. I personally hope she will learn from this and another company will give her a new chance. The odds of that are slim given how big this has become--it's front-paging repeatedly on HN and /r/programming. But I'd hate to see her whole career ruin…

According to this article[1] this was not a single mistake, but a pattern of how she handles things. [1] https://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/

I'll say this adds a very different dimension to story. Interesting!

Re: A Difficult Situation

#154

Post by [deleted] »

josh-j wrote: post #56

I think Adria could have avoided this if she apologized not for reporting the offenders to pycon, but for publicly identifying them. She was given the perfect opportunity for this when one of the offenders apologized for their own misstep in a hacker news thread that she herself commented in ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5398681 ).

[deleted]

Re: A Difficult Situation

#155

Post by subsystem »

mtrimpe wrote: post #99
robotmay wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is standing behind his employees; by protecting the jobs of those not involved in the drama. Any CEO who would stand behind an employee to the death of their company would not be CEO for very long.

Why did they feel the need to very publicly post this dismissal (and withdraw, and then reissue) in the heat of the moment while under a DDoS attack though, rather than sooner or later? It very much feels like a cowardly act of throwing someone under a bus.

When your employee is being called nasty things all over the Internet[0] over something that happened while she was doing work you sent her out to do and your solution is to fire said person, then you are a coward. It doesn't matter if what she did was a mistake, if you had to reassign her, even suspend her or let her go eventually. When people are disrespecting your employees, especially employees associated with your good name, any decent leader fights back.

[0] https://twitter.com/search/realtime?q=adria+richards+cunt&#3... https://www.facebook.com/adriarichards/posts/633920489967718

Re: A Difficult Situation

#156

Post by jennyjenjen »

devilshaircut wrote: post #12

I applaud SendGrid's response to this debacle. It is carefully weighed and expresses the precise reason why action absolutely needed to be taken. It is worthy of praise that they are willing to step into a very controversial issue and do what is best for their employees despite the potential fallout. I encourage anyone who was considering not using SendGrid's services in light of recent events to reconsider, given th…

I just wish they had started out with this statement instead of abruptly announcing her firing. That just seemed uncharacteristic of SendGrid and rather inappropriate.

However, you're very right in that it was a reasoned, rational response. It's tough to argue what Jim Franklin laid down in that post.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#158

Post by shock-value »

eridius wrote: post #147
powertower wrote: post #98

They need to update that statement with the fact that the joke was not about her, nor directed at her. Their statement leaves that very important part out, making the reader think otherwise - that she was the victim. At the same time (or around that time) this was happening, here is a conversation she was having - http://i.imgur.com/nRC5J7f.png Another gem from years ago - http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c I'd imagine she was…

Can people please stop bringing up that tweet? It has absolutely nothing to do with what happened at PyCon. Whatever she says on her own personal twitter feed is wholly unrelated to what happens at a professional event. Especially since the only people who see her tweet are people that have explicitly chosen to do so (either by following her or by following someone's link to it). What is acceptable in an opt-in scena…

It's the same twitter account she used to "shame" the two guys who made the joke. It's relevant.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#159

Post by mtrimpe »

seivan wrote: post #151
eridius wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can people please stop bringing up that tweet? It has absolutely nothing to do with what happened at PyCon. Whatever she says on her own personal twitter feed is wholly unrelated to what happens at a professional event. Especially since the only people who see her tweet are people that have explicitly chosen to do so (either by following her or by following someone's link to it). What is acceptable in an opt-in scena…

Character flaw.

Also known as the good old ad-hominem attack.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#160

Post by incongruity »

eridius wrote: post #147
powertower wrote: post #98

They need to update that statement with the fact that the joke was not about her, nor directed at her. Their statement leaves that very important part out, making the reader think otherwise - that she was the victim. At the same time (or around that time) this was happening, here is a conversation she was having - http://i.imgur.com/nRC5J7f.png Another gem from years ago - http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c I'd imagine she was…

Can people please stop bringing up that tweet? It has absolutely nothing to do with what happened at PyCon. Whatever she says on her own personal twitter feed is wholly unrelated to what happens at a professional event. Especially since the only people who see her tweet are people that have explicitly chosen to do so (either by following her or by following someone's link to it). What is acceptable in an opt-in scena…

>Whatever she says on her own personal twitter feed is wholly unrelated to what happens at a professional event.

Except: A) She posted the picture in question on that twitter feed and B) She identifies herself as affiliated with her (former) employer at the top of that feed/in her profile. To me, those make her "personal" feed not so personal and wholly germane to this conversation.

Post reply on HN