Update on Julie Horvath's Departure • Hacker News Board

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#151

Post by cypherpunks01 » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 3:59 AM UTC

comrh wrote: post #74

pekk wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's consider what it means for this GitHub hula hoop party to be "unsafe." What is the dangerous thing that Horvath thought would happen? Do we really consider the suggestion plausible that GitHub's allowance of hula-hooping-watching will result in a gang rape in its offices?

Quite the stretch you've outlined. But maybe "unsafe" could mean the exact things Horvath mentions happened to her like coworkers visiting her at her home to make advances.

Where are you reading that the coworker visited her at home? All I saw is, 'asked himself over to “talk"' in a context which implied to me that it took place at the office.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#152

Post by Bluestrike2 » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 4:00 AM UTC

BCM43 wrote: post #92

sitharus wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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 on leave seems to be too nice. It's clear that these two people obey ethics that are in direct oppposition to…

>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.

From a legal standpoint, an employee's status as a founder or owner/shareholder is largely irrelevant. There's no basis for special treatment--in fact, depending on how it's handled, such special treatment would, at a minimum, place the company in a potentially perilous legal situation with future cases.

One of the major ideas behind suspending employees for investigations is to eliminate their ability to influence the investigation. Also, it's a immediate precautionary measure to prevent the behavior from continuing should the complaint be found to be valid. In that sense, it protects the employer by keeping them at a distance in the short-term. They can also point to it in the press and in future legal proceedings (if any) as part of a strategy of showing that they took the complaint seriously from the beginning.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#153

Post by product50 » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 4:01 AM UTC

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…

>> 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.

Wow - if anyone wants to see an example of an article being overanalyzed and then terrible conclusions being made out of it, this is a model comment for that.

Each of your supposed inferences is critical and harsh. Stop being so cynical - it will help you. The world is still a nice place..

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#154

Post by sdesol » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 4:02 AM UTC

JeremyMorgan wrote: post #100

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.

No but the apology says a lot...

The apology could be interpreted in a lot of ways. It could be we fucked up and we are sorry. Or it could be, Julie really blew things out of proportion/overreacted/misinterpreted things and we wish we were better able to react to her hysteria, and we apologize for not being able to.

GitHub is a business and they aren't dumb enough to not consult one or more lawyers before releasing their statement. If they are in the wrong, I would have to imagine their best play would be to compensate Julie behind the scene and have her formally come out and say GitHub is doing everything they can to ensure this doesn't happen again.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#155

Post by fpgeek » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 4:02 AM UTC

MarkTee wrote: post #33

duncan_bayne wrote: post #3

Awesome response from GitHub. Professional response, apologises and thanks the complainant rather than being defensive ... I think their new HR hire in January is already paying dividends ;)

Not PR, HR (i.e Human Resources). In other words, someone who should have been working to clean up this mess months ago.

Absent a time machine, how could a hire in January have been working to clean up this mess "months ago"?

Blame the CEO and the rest of the management team for not hiring a good HR person sooner if you want, but I don't see how you fault the person who just walked into this mess. Unless you're blaming them for not seeing the mess or walking into it with their eyes open. To me, that seems counterproductive. Having people with the appropriate skills take on the difficult work of improving these cultures is part of how things get better.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#156

Post by orblivion » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 4:03 AM UTC

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…

I think the fact that he went as far as to give a personal shout out to her at the end says that they're doing more than the bare minimum to keep from getting skinned alive, I think they must at least be taking it genuinely seriously.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#157

Post by leccine » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 4:04 AM UTC

jw2013 wrote: post #38

leccine wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think needed to be fixed? You are assuming that everything Julie states is right...

I am not assuming everything Julie states is right. For statement "the culture of Github needs some fix" to be true, it only needs only some of Julie's statements to be true. And looks like from Chris's statement, that is true (otherwise why did they "punish" founder & his wife).

They did not punish anybody. Not letting a non-employee into their offices does not qualify as punishment. Put on leave for a president also not. It is more to the media and wait to let the dust settle. The culture of Github needs some fix can be interpreted many ways it does not say anything concrete. This is all politics. :)

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#158

Post by bogs_carut » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 4:05 AM UTC

sgrove wrote: post #108

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…

I'm similarly blown away that this comment is at the top. What a dangerous conclusion to jump to.

It's particularly frightening to me because it appears that GitHub is attempting to do the right thing here -- investigate the allegations without the influence of potentially involved parties.

Yet, if such a thing is construed as an admission of guilt in the greater "court of public opinion" then there's an incentive to actively avoid any attempt at transparency.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#159

Post by qdog » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 4:05 AM UTC

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…

I worked somewhere where a female co-worker hired a "stripper-gram" or something for another male co-worker's birthday in the office. I was single and not even dating at the time, but felt extremely uncomfortable with an actual stripper in the office, myself. So, even though they seemed to be consenting, I didn't appreciate having a stripper in the office, and neither did several of my (also male) coworkers.

I can imagine any amount of ogling would be uncomfortable, regardless of consent of the participants, to an observer.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#160

Post by jw2013 » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 4:05 AM UTC

courtf wrote: post #105

jw2013 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> This narrows down the choices: the "founder" who is the cause for all this drama is either PJ Hyett or Tom Preston-Werner. Any guess?

I would venture to guess Tom. I certainly don't know for sure, but he has a wife (don't know about PJ's marital status) who is herself a founder/CEO and wouldn't raise eyebrows spending time working at the Github offices.

Is that a coincidence: https://twitter.com/tpdubs2/status/444509011522891776

Just last Friday his wife's startup is accepted to Techstars NYC, and she is going to be at NYC. It may be a good timing for Tom to take a leave to be with his wife.

Just guessing here. I could totally be wrong. No offense to Tom; I looked up to him.