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

291–300 of 473 posts

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#291

Post by throwaway092834 »

001sky wrote: post #289
ssorallen wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The wife was mentioned because she was called out in the earlier article as a problem. We don't know if she was actually a problem or not. We, and specifically you, don't know enough to make the claims you're making.

Please, stop speculating. Have patience, wait for actual information.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#293

Post by linuxhansl »

I wish we could stop this.

Women in software is an important topic. This specific issue on the other hand is just a he-said-she-said soap opera.

Nobody but the folks directly involved here know what really happened. Everything else is useless.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#295

Post by rcruzeiro »

hnriot wrote: post #147
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 confuse…

I think we shouldn't read too much on her reaction to the hula hooping. As she said, it was the last straw, and in my experience the last straw usually isn't that significant by itself. Maybe, on any other day she would have been annoyed, as it was something that she didn't appreciate, but would have let it go. However, after all the trouble with the founder, his wife and the admirer, she saw the hola hooping as a sign that it was better for her to leave.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#296

Post by balls187 »

chris_wot wrote: post #290
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.

Surely that is the job of HR?

Yah, and/or Management/Leadership.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#297

Post by [deleted] »

001sky wrote: post #289
ssorallen wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#298

Post by madeofpalk »

shepbook wrote: post #273
chris11 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't quite read the statement as saying the founder's wife had access to private repos. I just read it as saying that the founder's wife claimed to have access to private company communication, specifically chat logs only intended for github employees. But a statement clearing the concerns up would be nice.

They use campfire so giving anyone access to the chat logs would be as simple as adding them. They could then look at any logged history (almost all of it, unless the room was locked) and search through it however they liked.

I'm under the impression that GitHub has moved away from campfire and uses their own custom chat system

[1]: https://twitter.com/holman/status/444642237456998400

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#299

Post by mapt »

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.

You get to feel mildly uncomfortable about people staring at a moving body, if you are the hoola-hooper. The most extreme acceptable course of corrective action is to stop hoola-hooping.

A bystander gets no such luxury, and if the concern is an intrusive thought which makes them feel threatened... then maybe they're not suitably mature to participate in social endeavors.

It seems like a pretty reasonable (albeit one-sided) complaint except for this one point - but the fact that she was threatened by that, casts some small measure of doubt on the plausible sanity of rest of the thing.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#300

Post by greenyoda »

cpayne wrote: post #253
greenyoda wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"At the end of the day, all they have is their brand to protect." They also need to protect their company from a potential lawsuit.

How is the damage of a lawsuit different to the damage of their brand? It's one and the same.

Damage to their brand is temporary. If they behave themselves in a civilized manner from here on in, the media will soon forget this incident and move on to the next scandal.

On the other hand, if the lawsuit is for enough money, it can bankrupt the company: a huge award to the plaintiff, lawyer fees, executives tied up in court instead of running the company, etc. Their investors may not be interested in covering big losses; they might cut their losses and move on to the next up and coming company.

Post reply on HN