Update on Julie Horvath's Departure • Hacker News Board

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#411

Post by mst » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 2:08 PM UTC

mtrimpe wrote: post #331

md224 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'm not sure if you were framing this as a net negative or positive, but I actually do appr…

It seems that the flamewar detector (although I think it actually used to be flagging mostly) has been adjusted somewhat, or at least given a manual override for worthy discussions. I can reassure you that this thread would have quickly been flagged off just a few months ago. I'm guessing it's due to the fair amount of criticism PG received (from myself included) over how the flamewar-filter censored sensitive, yet i…

I would say that it's more likely that the team consistently monitors multiple factors and makes adjustments based on overall input.

Or, the complaints including yours probably did have -some- influence, but I think you're overestimating how much because to you, your comments were a heartfelt effort to make a point, whereas to pg they were 'add one to number of complaints of type X'. It's still important, given said number will have been factored into the decision making process, but probably not that important.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#412

Post by balls187 » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 2:10 PM UTC

duncan_bayne wrote: post #360

balls187 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, I got your point quite clearly. If hula hooping women make you uncomfortable, that's unfortunate, but also totally your problem. Ditto breastfeeding and suchlike.

Clearly you did not.

> If hula hooping women make you uncomfortable

It wasn't women hula hooping made someone feel uncomfortable.

It was men "gawking" at the women hula hooping, that made Julie Horvath feel uncomfortable.

I hope you understand the difference.

> If hula hooping women make you uncomfortable, that's unfortunate, but also totally your problem. Ditto breastfeeding and suchlike.

Tangentially related--another key point you're missing, this is an office.

No one should have to feel uncomfortable at the workplace, because the office is for people to work and be productive, not hula hoop.

Things like hula hooping (I'm guessing), yoga, tai chi, Zumba, etc, are there to improve worker productivity. If these programs run counter to that and actually hinder productivity by making some employees feel uncomfortable, then those programs may not be the right fit for the workplace.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#413

Post by balls187 » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 2:14 PM UTC

duncan_bayne wrote: post #379

trhway wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if we reverse the genders, do you think no woman would complain (or just gawk) if she saw this happening in the office http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrA5zL9u5NE&feature=player_de...

Gawk? Quite possibly. Complain? One* ex-colleague of mine was gay, and he'd have been rendered temporarily incapacitated by that, I suspect. But the point is that hula-hooping, or shirtless weight-lifting, shouldn't be prohibited just because some people gawk and others are made uncomfortable. If you want to sexualise hula-hooping or weight-lifting, fine, just don't use that point of view as the basis of a complaint.…

> But the point is that hula-hooping, or shirtless weight-lifting, shouldn't be prohibited just because some people gawk and others are made uncomfortable.

You believe it's okay for people to be at the office without their shirts on?

Where do you draw the line-- what behaviors should be prohibited at the office, simply because they might make others uncomfortable?

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#414

Post by mst » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 2:16 PM UTC

rodgerd wrote: post #355

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…

> 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? My workplace has people doing yoga and dance classes in meeting rooms over lunch. And if you started hanging around the meeting rooms to ogle the people doing it you'd be having some conversations about your workplace behaviour.

> And if you started hanging around the meeting rooms to ogle the people doing it

There's no way to prove or disprove the fact that they were 'ogling' rather than merely watching though - Horvath's judgement was likely biased by how upset she was with everybody else's (fuck, mine would be if I'd been as epically shat on by an employer as she felt she had been) and we don't have any other data.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#415

Post by goldmar » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 2:22 PM UTC

infinity0 wrote: post #386

piokoch wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if Horvath is right or not, but this is nice case study how PR works. I would say this statement is a very clever move from GitHub side. I guess they have skilled PR people working on the issue. At first look, the cited article seems to admit to everything. As a result, it will be sort of last news on the topic - if they admitted Horvath is right and they even put on leave a founder and the programmer an…

It's possible that things will be brushed under the carpet as you say. But I'm not convinced that this is a "clever PR move" as you suggest. What else can GitHub do at this point? Fire the people involved without even investigating ?

I think that it's the way the PR statement is written that is 'clever'. By putting the founder on leave and banning his wife from the office they haven taken pro-active action (which was not mandatory). As has been noted, it might seem that they have admitted some wrong-doing when in fact they have not. But it's enough food for the media to drop the issue...

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#416

Post by chrishynes » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 2:39 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #408

Karn wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the wilfully-clueless are out in force on this one. I really thought your questions weren't serious, as to normal people these things are self-evident by age 15. However, seeing as how you identify yourself with "pron", I realised you're serious and you actually don't have a clue about these things. All right, I've had too much caffeine today and I'm feeling generous, so here goes: > why is it that women find t…

OMG. Were you found in the woods and raised by a fraternity at a state college? Your knowledge of sexuality in humans (particularly in women), gender roles and gender pressures is so lacking that I fear some gross negligence on the part of your parents. You, buddy, deserve a good spanking by your mother, and then you'd be well served by reading a book or two on human sexuality and sociology. Keeping some better femal…

"nor has it been common in the West throughout the ages"

Explain to me what "ages" have had a "professional environment". The "professional environment" you speak of has only arisen in the last century or so, if that.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#417

Post by pessimizer » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 2:41 PM UTC

kilburn wrote: post #382

pron wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is sad that some people dispute the existence of sexism in tech, but that does not make it controversial in the sense that it is contentious, because it isn't. The facts are simple: 1) technology is a big source of power in our society, and 2) women are underrepresented in tech. Whenever a well defined group of people is absent from (or underrepresented in) a source of power, discrimination is taking place, period…

> Again, the burden of proof is on GitHub I can see how "to align with the weaker party" can be a sensible goal for a society. However, in this case it directly conflicts with the presumption of innocence principle, which is an even higher goal for a just society. So no, the burden of proof lies in whoever is making the accusations, whatever the (un)balanced of power between parties is. What we should do is (1) not j…

>the presumption of innocence principle, which is an even higher goal for a just society.

The presumption of innocence doesn't mean that anyone must either think or pretend to think that someone is innocent, any more than freedom of speech means that facebook can't take your youtube link down.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#418

Post by Karn » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 2:41 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #408

Karn wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the wilfully-clueless are out in force on this one. I really thought your questions weren't serious, as to normal people these things are self-evident by age 15. However, seeing as how you identify yourself with "pron", I realised you're serious and you actually don't have a clue about these things. All right, I've had too much caffeine today and I'm feeling generous, so here goes: > why is it that women find t…

OMG. Were you found in the woods and raised by a fraternity at a state college? Your knowledge of sexuality in humans (particularly in women), gender roles and gender pressures is so lacking that I fear some gross negligence on the part of your parents. You, buddy, deserve a good spanking by your mother, and then you'd be well served by reading a book or two on human sexuality and sociology. Keeping some better femal…

Yes, despite the mind-bogglingly clueless questions you asked in your previous post, I'm the one whose knowledge is lacking. Yes, women like form fitting clothes, you know, as in tailored clothes? Perhaps the women you work with are all sexless drones who wear hoodies and sweatpants and expect the same from men, but at my workplace the women are fit, attractive, and dress well. And they always appreciate a compliment.

Why do you think male attention deserves jail time? Did you try to pay a woman a compliment once and did it so clumsily that she called security? Memories like that can be hard to get over, I imagine.

> Women flaunting sexual characteristics in a professional environment is neither common today

Of course not, like hula-hooping at an office party, or wearing a nice suit or dress, or high heels. But again, perhaps you've only ever worked with aforementioned sweatpant- and sneaker-wearers.

> nor has it been common in the West throughout the ages

Right... no man in the West ever seduced (or got seduced by) his secretary or female co-worker. You must live a remarkably sheltered life.

> You clearly confuse sexual desire with when and how people pursue it

You clearly have no clue that people pursue sex whenever they can, as much as they can get away with despite your "social pressures." I wonder why... could it be that you are remarkably unattractive?

> you are completely blind to social pressure

I'm not the "completely blind" one here....

> I fear that if you don't get that long due spanking soon you have some serious lawsuits awaiting you in the future, and possibly some jail time

Don't worry "pron," unlike you, I'm always aware of when my attention and advances are desired or not. Your mother clearly knew you were hopeless and just told you to not even try, ever.

> especially if you keep taking sexual cues from insects.

Really? You're going to just make stuff up now? Saying that insects display sexual behaviour === taking sexual cues from insects?

> Perhaps it may seem baffling to your juvenile mind, but I adopted my screen name over twenty years ago, well before the internet, and back when it was just my acronym and had no other uses whatsoever.

Well, good for you! It's strangely prophetic and very apt, if that's true.

If you're old enough to have chosen your username 20 years ago there's no hope for you and I've really been wasting my time. I did in fact think you were a clueless younger guy. Bye now.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#419

Post by glesica » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 2:47 PM UTC

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…

  > It's unfortunate TechCrunch and Valley Wag posted the story without first corroborating at least some piece of it.

I think we have to be careful with statements like this. Yes, they could have tried to find a Github employee who would corroborate part of it, perhaps the assertion that the wife was in the office periodically. But the problem with that is that it is perfectly reasonable to think they would have failed to find anyone willing to talk about it. Then what? Should they not publish? If they hadn't, would Github be investigating now? Would anyone be on leave? Probably not.

Asking for corroboration is fine, but we should be mindful that some things that are true can't be corroborated and demanding corroboration just gives the accused party the de facto ability to suppress the information or the debate.

Her story passes a basic smell test, it very well could be true, and there is no specific reason to doubt her. While this doesn't mean it is true, it isn't necessarily irresponsible to publish it either.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#420

Post by dhimes » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 2:52 PM UTC

goldmar wrote: post #415

infinity0 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible that things will be brushed under the carpet as you say. But I'm not convinced that this is a "clever PR move" as you suggest. What else can GitHub do at this point? Fire the people involved without even investigating ?

I think that it's the way the PR statement is written that is 'clever'. By putting the founder on leave and banning his wife from the office they haven taken pro-active action (which was not mandatory). As has been noted, it might seem that they have admitted some wrong-doing when in fact they have not. But it's enough food for the media to drop the issue...

But you at least have to allow for the possibility that they are doing the right thing here. Perhaps they respect Julie enough to take her claims seriously and correct the obvious wrongs (gf in the offices) while doing what every other organization does in putting the person under investigation on leave.

Yes, perhaps they are bullshitting. But this is also what the PR release would say if they were trying to do the right things by all parties but don't have the information they need or the time they need to figure out exactly what the repercussions should be.