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

281–290 of 473 posts

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#281

Post by peterwwillis »

Please - I would like to ask all the commenters to respect the privacy and feelings of all the people affected, their loved ones, and friends. The only productive or good thing you can do is express sympathy for the victims and hope they reach an amicable resolution.

Most of you probably have no idea how some thoughtless comments on a forum can cause grief, pain and fear to intensify. Making hurtful comments, making assumptions, and taking sides does nothing to help anyone involved. It can only hurt someone, and is completely unnecessary (other than for sating a debased wish to feed on the suffering of others). Whatever happens does not concern you and will not be affected by you in any positive way.

So, pretty please, for the sake of all the people who are directly and indirectly affected by this story, STOP. SPECULATING.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#282

Post by Exenith »

I try to avoid these topics, but it's almost sad to see how easily you've all rushed to her side. It seems the magic word of the 2010s is "sexism": utter that word, and people will defend you no matter how little evidence there is, no matter how full of shit you are -- assuming, of course, you are a female.

Is what she described accurate? Maybe so, maybe not. No one fucking knows, and that is the point. Stop being assholes about it until someone, if anyone, has been proven to have done wrong. It's not uncommon for someone to feel sourgrapes about a situation and use "sexism" as a way to manipulate it in their favor. Most of you act like that isn't even a fucking possibility.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#283

Post by madeofpalk »

hueving wrote: post #199
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 ;)

They didn't actually apologize for anything in specific. This is very carefully crafted and is being very defensive by not admitting to anything. The only real meat is clarifying that the wife had no hiring/firing power.

It sounds like a pretty good apoligy for something they (claim) to know nothing about.

It's hard to apologise for something specific before you know what that actually is.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#284

Post by ssorallen »

sequoia wrote: post #248

When I arrived at this thread, comment two was 'using the information available in the short techcrunch article, I'm now going to PROVE, point by point, how Horvath's claims are false.' Comment three was 'aha they issued a vague apology, this is basically a FULL ADMISSION that everything Horvath said was true!' People: when did our brains melt and spill out of our ears? There is not enough public information present…

Yes. Comments on the original TechCrunch article were equally vindicating even though that article offered no actual evidence. It's unfortunate TechCrunch and Valley Wag posted the story without first corroborating at least some piece of it.

GitHub's response neither confirms nor denies any part of the story. It does say the founder's wife will no longer be allowed in the office, but that is not an admission of wrongdoing nor of her ever having been in the office.

Edit: The only thing this response proves is that GitHub is taking these allegations seriously, which hopefully means there will be more information after they have time to investigate. Try not to jump to the many other conclusions already posted in HN comments.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#285

Post by Karn »

SolarNet wrote: post #266
Karn wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hula hooping in a non-private space is equivalent to screaming "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" If people are hula hooping, regardless of whether they are male or female, people are going to look. If the women were working on a laptop, or having a quiet conversation, and THEN men were gawping, that would be unacceptable. Want to hula hoop without being looked at? Do it in a private space. > You are basically using the same…

It's not that people were looking, it was that they were gawking. It's not that they glanced at it, or watched for a few seconds. It's that they spent a prolonged time watching it.

And I'm saying it's perfectly OK to "spend a prolonged time watching it".

If women are doing something that involves a lot of pelvic gyrations, then yes, it is absolutely understandable AND acceptable that men will stare. It's not the men turning them into "sex objects" or whatever, the women already did that. And it's healthy, and normal, and most red-blooded men and women not only find it acceptable, they enjoy it. If you have the mindset that if women are dancing a man may only glance at it for a few seconds, I pity you and whatever caused you to turn out that way.

And this was at a party. If someone is so repressed that watching men stare at dancing women at a party makes them uncomfortable, they should stay home. Or move to a burqa-wearing country.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#286

Post by socceroos »

hueving wrote: post #199
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 ;)

They didn't actually apologize for anything in specific. This is very carefully crafted and is being very defensive by not admitting to anything. The only real meat is clarifying that the wife had no hiring/firing power.

Explain to me why you would admit to anything if you haven't got to the bottom of it yourself? As they explained, they're investigating the issue currently.

So...doesn't their response then make sense?

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#287

Post by balls187 »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #272
balls187 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely. I think Julie should have spoken to both groups, telling the guys it's not cool to gawk at women, and tell the women if they want to hula hoop, do it some place more private.

> and tell the women if they want to hula hoop, do it some place more private. Indeed. And just in case men still gawked at them, she could have brought some free niqab to work for them to wear. http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2013-09-18.png

Eh, I think you missed my point.

The point of talking to the women isn't to help the men exercise better restraint (which extrapolated to an extreme would require a niqab).

It's that if the women are doing something in the office, out in the open that people stopping to watch would make other people feel uncomfortable, then perhaps it shouldn't be done out in plain view of everyone.

Like, if you are trying to have a private conversation with your Dr on the phone about your recent herpes outbreak, don't talk in the lunchroom and get pissed that I listened in.

We can come up with counter examples, and/or take things to the extreme, however my point is that exercising some restraint and a little professionalism would make situations like this non existent.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#288

Post by hhandoko »

balloot wrote: post #204
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…

By your logic, hiring managers should not be allowed to be married, lest they give a non-employee "defacto" hiring power. Before we string up the cofounder's wife, let's actually let her and/or the cofounder defend themselves, OK? It's entirely possible Horvath is completely embellishing things and the cofounder's wife didn't do anything terribly out of line.

That's quite the straw man.

The key here is that the founder's wife has a regular presence in the office. Plus, a founder is in a vastly higher position of authority than an employee (be it a manager, or else).

So it's not too far to imagine that she could exert some influence towards her husband's decision at work, e.g. hiring and firing of someone.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#289

Post by 001sky »

ssorallen wrote: post #284
sequoia wrote: post #248

When I arrived at this thread, comment two was 'using the information available in the short techcrunch article, I'm now going to PROVE, point by point, how Horvath's claims are false.' Comment three was 'aha they issued a vague apology, this is basically a FULL ADMISSION that everything Horvath said was true!' People: when did our brains melt and spill out of our ears? There is not enough public information present…

Yes. Comments on the original TechCrunch article were equally vindicating even though that article offered no actual evidence. It's unfortunate TechCrunch and Valley Wag posted the story without first corroborating at least some piece of it. GitHub's response neither confirms nor denies any part of the story. It does say the founder's wife will no longer be allowed in the office, but that is not an admission of wrong…

"offered no actual evidence"

First hand testimony might be imperfect, but It is evidence.

Whether or not its conclusive remains to be seen.

That's the larger point.

Certainly, the above linked article lends at least some credibility to some claims.

The fact that the wife of a founder needed to in this type of PR damage controll manouvre...is a huge red flag by itself.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#290

Post by chris_wot »

balls187 wrote: post #247
sockgrant wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a casual work environment people often do light exercise Could you elaborate on this? In the work environments I've been in, people go to the gym or outside to work out. I've never been in a work environment where it's acceptable to do your exercising in the office space. What are you talking about -- yoga, bicep curls, jogging, jumping jacks? I've worked at extremely liberal companies but that kind of stuff doe…

Definitely. I think Julie should have spoken to both groups, telling the guys it's not cool to gawk at women, and tell the women if they want to hula hoop, do it some place more private.

Surely that is the job of HR?
Post reply on HN