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

301–310 of 473 posts

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#301

Post by steveklabnik »

madeofpalk wrote: post #298
shepbook wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

At the same time: http://zachholman.com/posts/github-communication/

> We still use (and love) Campfire.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#302

Post by narohi »

madeofpalk wrote: post #298
shepbook wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's probably a custom client for Campfire (right underneath the screenshot[1] they say it's Campfire).

[1]: http://zachholman.com/posts/github-communication/ (first screenshot)

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#303

Post by aceperry »

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…

"People: when did our brains melt and spill out of our ears?"

When the topic is as controversial as sexism in tech and the workplace. Or whatever the flashpoint happens to be at the moment. Like sequoia, I've noticed that controversial topics brings out the most incredible responses from both sides, and often with very little definitive evidence. To me, this is a sign of how deeply felt this topic is, and how much it is just under the surface of our thoughts, ready to explode when an appropriate trigger occurs.

I laughed when I read the quote above and thought it was a good comment.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#304

Post by balloot »

hhandoko wrote: post #288
balloot wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, she could exert influence. Just like every other SO of every other hiring manager in the world. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I hire people, and I talk to my wife all the time about work matters. And if, knowing everything she knows about my team, she told me that I should be looking at cutting someone loose, I would take that advice very seriously. Every good executive has trusted advisors, and for people in serious relationships the partner is very commonly one of those advisors.

The only problem here is the wife's alleged direct meddling with work matters, not that she had a strong influence on her husband's work decisions. For founders, life is totally enmeshed with work and it would actually be weird if his wife DIDN'T have strong opinions on the company he built while she supported him at home.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#305

Post by ceol »

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…

> GitHub's response neither confirms nor denies any part of the story.

Well, they do say:

    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. 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.
So it's not like they're completely silent. They said both the referenced founder and employee have been put on leave and the wife, who apparently was allowed in the office before this, is no longer. They didn't flat-out admit to anything, but it's not like they're totally silent.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#306

Post by hrktb »

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…

This statement has more meaning that you are willing to concede.

If they are starting now to investigate, it means that when troubles were occuring, or even when Julia H. gave her demission, they didn't care enough to investigate thoroughly (perhaps they have other priorities, that's just a fact).

This in itself is not good looking, and I feel that from there whatever really happened, they won't have the full version anymore (one of the party is already out) and they will have a huge incentive to go into damage control mode instead of genuinely trying to make the situation better for both parties. Especially, the more they do, the worse their image would be on the PR front ( I hope they do whatever is fair anyway, but the balance is tipped).

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#307

Post by n1ghtmare_ »

Honestly If all of this is true, then obviously what happened is wrong, but I don't really see the sexism in this whole thing. Is it the houla-hoops thingy ? Because I gotta tell you if 2 dudes start doing houla-hoops where I work everybody will stop and watch ... Just because it's ... I dunno weird ? funny ? unusual ? Am I missing something ?

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#308

Post by ceol »

sockgrant wrote: post #277
SolarNet wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could you elaborate on this? I've seen yoga, weights, and those things you compress, basically stuff to get the blood flowing again. Hoola hooping is probably a bit more admittedly, but not that extreme. Especially since it sounds like it was happening outside. > I don't think it's a person's right to hula hoop in an office and then be upset when they attract the attention of the rest of the office, regardless of s…

> it implies a work environment where it is ok to sexually objectify your co-workers (or that seems to be how she took it) What? This is a case where two people did something unusual in a work environment and garnered the attention of their coworkers. That's expected. It's unexpected that you think it necessarily implies sexual objectification. Go stand in the middle of your office tomorrow and hoola hoop. Whatever s…

> This is a case where two people did something unusual in a work environment and garnered the attention of their coworkers. That's expected.

Did this ever say it was in their office? All it said was they were hula-hooping to some music and the response from the bench-full of male employees was embarrassing. If it were outdoors, it wouldn't be unusual.

Either way, in what world do you see something out of the ordinary — but not strange — happening at work and line up to gawk at it?

> It's unexpected that you think it necessarily implies sexual objectification.

It's certainly possible for a bench-full of 20-something programmers to sexually objectify someone. Julie was made to feel uncomfortable, and since she's the best eye witness to the event we've got, there's no reason to doubt her testimony.

Not everything needs to be picked apart. Sometimes, if a bunch of guys are gawking at women, that's what they're doing. You don't need to stick up for them.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#309

Post by callmeed »

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…

Errr, I don't follow. I'm a co-founder and in an office of 5 people. My wife stops by to visit me at least once a week. The only defacto power she has is to steal my gummy worms off my desk.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#310

Post by gregmolnar »

cpncrunch wrote: post #182
jbranchaud wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, people can do what they want, but in a workplace there are (or should be) standards and codes of conduct that help inform employees how to behave in a way that doesn't poison the environment for others. So sure, if people want to watch that at home, then I guess that is their prerogative, but doing so at work doesn't seem productive or healthy for their (or any company's) community and culture.

Sure, but how does hula-hooping poison the environment? As far as we can tell, the women doing the hula-hooping were doing it for fun/exercise with no sexual intent, and the men watching just thought it was entertaining and not sexual. Then Julie comes along and complains that it's like a strip joint!? Now I wasn't there and I have nothing to do with github, but that is just my take on it. It just sounds like Julie h…

"Sure, but how does hula-hooping poison the environment? As far as we can tell, the women doing the hula-hooping were doing it for fun/exercise with no sexual intent, and the men watching just thought it was entertaining and not sexual."

Exactly. The intension is very important. Also if the hula hooping girls would of been bothered by the guys watching them I guess they should've let them know.

Post reply on HN