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

Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 473 posts

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#141

Post by nightski »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #103
BCM43 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's pretty standard practice to place employees on paid leave while serious complaints are investigated. Employees? Sure. Founders? I've not heard of that before.

I also have never heard of a founder being put on leave. I wouldn't go quite so far as to say it is an admission that the allegations are true. But it is certainly an admission that they have merit and are not so far from reality as to be easily dismissed. I am pleased that Github is taking this seriously, and very sorry for Julie's experiences. This should never happen to anyone in our industry.

Maybe the founder chose to go on leave to allow for the investigation? Or at least was involved?

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#142

Post by gdilla »

kevincrane wrote: post #56
tw268 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitHub is known to have a dubstep and IPA culture. If they want to be a standard bearer for feminism in tech, the transition is going to be difficult and they are going to take some hits. The two cultures don't mix well. It sounds like GitHub is going to have to become more stale and corporate to survive as a larger company, which is inevitable, but hastened by their own choices.

> GitHub is known to have a dubstep and IPA culture. What point are you trying to make here? Are you a classical music and hefeweizen type of employee typically? Or maybe based out of Seattle, in which case you'd prefer a more grunge/PBR culture?

he's trying to say bro-grammer with the bro-gram.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#144

Post by jmspring »

bdcravens wrote: post #95

The founder’s wife discussed in the media reports has never had hiring or firing power at GitHub and will no longer be permitted in the office. The fact that she was married to someone who did have hiring or firing power and WAS permitted in the office means she DID have (defacto) hiring or firing power. I wonder what the ramifications are, legal-wise? Obviously the founder could be sued, especially if he was allowin…

The largest issue, for myself, really was the lapse in HR policy specifically around the founder and the wife. It is a huge lapse in common sense on behalf of said founder and should not have come to pass.

A smaller family run business, maybe I could see such policies happening (not necessarily right), but a venture backed company with a board and a trio of cofounders? Bad, bad form.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#145

Post by nether »

macspoofing wrote: post #11

Usually there are two sides of the story, but the fact that a non-employee (wife of co-founder) exercised so much power and meddled in internal office politics in the way that she did, it was hard to see how GitHub could even claim a reasonable stance. They screwed this up big time. This is a good response.

She's like the Spinal Tap member's girlfriend...

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#146

Post by vulf »

laureny wrote: post #125
vacri wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much a full admission that everything that Julie said is true. This is a terrible assumption to make. This line is basically saying "we're taking this seriously", because if they said anything less, then regardless of the truth of the matter, they'd be skinned alive. Ironically, it's knee-jerk black and white comments like yours that create this kind of press release. You've already convicted them in your mind…

Fair enough about the HR person (who probably acted in fear for their job), but how often does the co-founder of a very successful start up get put on leave within 24 hours of an article published on Techcrunch?

How? Easily. If you're investigating the matter you want to distance all parties involved from the situation, so that they cannot influence the outcome. If Julie was still employed there, she would have certainly been put on leave as well.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#147

Post by hnriot »

leccine wrote: post #13

Well Julie's story stinks. Let me just quote the last thigs she wrote and work backwards from that. "Two women, one of whom I work with and adore, and a friend of hers were hula hooping to some music. I didn’t have a problem with this. What I did have a problem with is the line of men sitting on one bench facing the hoopers and gawking at them. It looked like something out of a strip club. When I brought this up to m…

It's pretty odd for women to be hula hooping, I've never seen that, but Julia's reaction to is is bananas. How does that make her feel threatened? Can't she just ignore it, of course men are going to look, did the women think nobody would notice? To me this belittles any legitimate claim she might have, if she's this irrational about this event, then it clouds my view of other things she says.

She also sounds confused, unless the women doing hula hooping were also taking off their clothes then I fail to see how she thinks this looks like anything at a strip club. If the hula women were stripping then she has a legitimate claim that this is inappropriate in the workplace, otherwise I don't see how this is any different to table tennis or air hockey etc.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#148

Post by ephemeralgomi »

greenyoda wrote: post #106
Recoil42 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Pretty much a full admission that everything that Julie said is true. No, it isn't. It's standard operating procedure pretty much everywhere to put employees on leave while an investigation is conducted. It shouldn't be construed as an admission at all.

"I would like to personally apologize to Julie" certainly sounds like an admission that the company wronged her. And don't lawyers frequently tell their clients not to apologize (even if they feel they ought to), since that may be construed as an admission of wrongdoing in a subsequent legal proceeding?

If anything, "I would like to personally apologize to Julie" would mean that defunkt personally wronged her, not the company.

Maybe he's just sorry because she's obviously hurt and things didn't work out for the best?

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#149

Post by jgilliam »

vacri wrote: post #102
laureny wrote: post #21

> We know we have to take action and have begun a full investigation. While that’s ongoing, and effective immediately, the relevant founder has been put on leave, as has the referenced GitHub engineer. Pretty much a full admission that everything that Julie said is true. This is great news, but putting these people on leave seems to be too nice. It's clear that these two people obey ethics that are in direct oppposit…

Pretty much a full admission that everything that Julie said is true. This is a terrible assumption to make. This line is basically saying "we're taking this seriously", because if they said anything less, then regardless of the truth of the matter, they'd be skinned alive. Ironically, it's knee-jerk black and white comments like yours that create this kind of press release. You've already convicted them in your mind…

A "full investigation" is the law in California when sexual harassment claims are made. It's not an admission of anything, it's just literally the law.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#150

Post by jamesaguilar »

nightski wrote: post #141
jamesaguilar wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also have never heard of a founder being put on leave. I wouldn't go quite so far as to say it is an admission that the allegations are true. But it is certainly an admission that they have merit and are not so far from reality as to be easily dismissed. I am pleased that Github is taking this seriously, and very sorry for Julie's experiences. This should never happen to anyone in our industry.

Maybe the founder chose to go on leave to allow for the investigation? Or at least was involved?

Oh, I don't doubt. Probably he saw the wisdom in stepping back while this is investigated, as any rational person would, guilty or not. Nonetheless, I cannot recall a situation where a founder of a company large enough to make the news has put themselves into a position where it would be necessary.
Post reply on HN