451–460 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I found that to be the oddest part; that after so much bullshit, that was the last straw. It was almost too anti-climatic of an ending to this sexism/crazy-founder/wife tale. Agreed though, completely 100% justified in getting out of that shit, glad the story got told as well.
The "last straw" literally means a last small thing, FYI.
I can't believe that no one has spotted that she is exactly the same annoying feminist that forced the company to get rid of a rug because it used the term "meritocracy". http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug#awesm... Tbfh, she sounds like Adria Richards v2.0
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When a line manager decides to make sure an employee stops doing something, it's actually several conversations: 1. A friendly conversation in which the manager points out the problem, establishes that they expect it to stop, but that if it stops immediately it'll all be forgotten. 2. A less friendly conversation in which the manager says I thought we were clear that you aren't supposed to do it. You're still doing i…
Most of what you say is good, but... You've already cleared it with political allies they have at the company who could stop it. If I found out that a manager was undermining me in this way, I'd strike back and it probably wouldn't be good for me or him. Trying to turn my friends against me? That's war. I'd fuck him up and I'd keep fucking him up after the end of that job. Letting an employee go isn't personal. Reach…
If I found out that a manager was undermining me in this
way, I'd strike back and it probably wouldn't be good for
me or him.
This is for exactly the reason you say: If you openly try but fail to get rid of someone, they may take it personally and try to "fuck up your shit".
If there's someone who can stop your threat (e.g. the employee is buddies with your boss) you go to that someone, lay out the problem and what you see as the options for solving it, and ask them for their advice. This advice will either be "go ahead" or "I'll take care of it"; in the latter case you should allow some time for them to take care of it.
I can't believe that no one has spotted that she is exactly the same annoying feminist that forced the company to get rid of a rug because it used the term "meritocracy". http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug#awesm... Tbfh, she sounds like Adria Richards v2.0
not saying she is right or wrong about how things went down with the founder's wife etc.
but she clearly is insane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What did senior management think of this? I can't imagine them taking kindly to the architect delaying shipping for weeks over such a trivial thing.
At the time he was viewed as critical to the project. They indulged him. A very steady stream of very good devs leaving the company occurred because of such invented rules and irrational behaviour. He was a truly great dev, but a fairly insane architect and gatekeeper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HR, legal, finance and IT are all unpopular for the same reason: it's part of their job to stop you doing things that may get the company in trouble later. Of course, this means they may be at times too conservative in the interests of having an easy life. Doesn't mean they're not useful at all.
I find myself almost perpetually annoyed by the bureaucratic arms of big organisations, HR and IT in particular, but what you've written is, in my view, a (terrible ;-)) truth. I think a balance of conservative and progressive opinion is required for almost any organisation to operate effectively: (genunie) progressives drive us forward, and (genuine) conservatives stop us going over the cliff - it is pretty much as…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why was it so critical to spell it "dialog", rather than "dialogue", as the higher-ups in the project apparently preferred?
It wasn't, there was no business justification for it at all. He just invented a rule "all names and variables must be in UK English".
Some geeky types will be tempted, upon founding a startup, to thus not have ANY women in significant roles in the company, and to keep it as guys-only as possible; outsourcing as needed and doing the other legal legwork as required to stay under the headcount (is it >50 people?) to avoid the EEOC.
I'll be more than tempted. To be 100% honest, I have that thought every single time I read any article or blog post about sexism in tech. If programmers with a Y-chromosome are exponentially less likely to either sue us or get us labelled sexist jerks in the press, then that's who we're hiring.
One for @shit_hn_says
Can someone explain how does one gets a job after inflicting so much public damage on his previous workplace?
Can someone explain how does one gets a job after inflicting so much public damage on his previous workplace?
It's hard. She may need a professional to rework her public image (even if her account is 100% accurate) and she'll want to settle for positive reference (i.e. not sue Github, agree to a non-disparagement contract in which they publicly state that she was an excellent employee, and that they've terminated all responsible parties-- if the truth is that no one did anything wrong, then they don't terminate anyone and that statement's vacuously true). She might want to brand herself as an authority on workplace harassment and on what light-management cultures need to do to protect themselves from bullying, and maybe consult for a little while on how to make tech companies more accepting of women. All the while, she'll have to paint a positive image of Github, even if she dislikes the place (and may have a reason to). It'll probably be 4-5 years before she can get conventional employment at an appropriate professional level.
At this point, she's made some serious tactical mistakes. For example, mentioning the hula nonincident dilutes/weakens her case dramatically. The bit about the founder's wife (if true) is utterly damning. The hula hoop? People stare at anything out of the ordinary. If it were men flying quadcopters, there'd be a group of people hanging to watch. Not sexist. When you take a story of someone (or a company) doing bad and flower it with irrelevant petty insults (they employ guys who stare at women!) it actually undermines the case that one is trying to make.
If she can get Github to come out with a public story that makes her look good but also saves its face, that's what she wants. She shouldn't play for cash IMO. Considering taxes, attorney contingency, and the high risk that she doesn't get anything, she's better off putting her energy into getting her reputation fixed. Reputation repair and lawsuits are both exhausting processes that may conflict and certainly compete for one's time and energy, and so it's hard to do both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somehow, furtive glances doesn't come across much better.
Try getting sternly lectured for 10 minutes because because you held the door open for a stranger to be polite. That's when you know shit gotten real. For the record, I routinely hold open doors for people that I know are behind me and are leaving/entering a building. It surprised me to know end to get yelled at for it.
I know it's shocking if something like the door thing happens to you, but I wouldn't assume it reflects the general attitude of women.