Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Results of the GitHub Investigation

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 514 posts

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#81

Post by ender7 »

"We didn't do anything illegal, or that would leave us vulnerable to a lawsuit" is about the only content that this blog post contains.

While Horvath characterized much of her woes as being gender-related [1], the investigation could have classified most of them as either unprovable or terrible-but-not-provably-sexist (in particular, the behavior of the Preston-Werners).

I doubt it will ever be clear what actually happened. Theresa Preston-Werner's response [2] spends more time avoiding topics than actually covering them. Tom Preston-Werner likewise [3] makes sure to reinforce the fact that GitHub is immune to lawsuit while providing no real details. I'm sure there are plenty of GitHub employees who have a strong opinion, but enough of them seem to have an ax to grind in one way or another that it's hard to trust that testimony.

[1] http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes...

[2] https://medium.com/p/2fe173c44215

[3] http://tom.preston-werner.com/2014/04/21/farewell-github-hel...

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#82

Post by pyre »

kategleason wrote: post #41

:( this sucks. Github would not even exist without Tom Preston-Werner and I am really scared to see how it will exist without him. Tragic for all his users.

> I am really scared to see how it will exist without him

Isn't that a little bit extreme? Do all the good things that happen at Github stem directly from Tom Preston-Werner?

I can't claim intimate knowledge of Github the company, but I somehow doubt that this is a "Steve Jobs" type situation.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#83

Post by asuffield »

SpikeGronim wrote: post #12
gregimba wrote: post #2

I don't even know what to make of this. They say there was no evidence but he is still resigning.

They say no evidence of illegality, but there is evidence of poor judgement. Without commenting on the specifics of this incident that's a valid reason to fire a CEO/co-founder/exec. I have no particular knowledge of what happened but if GitHub thinks he showed poor judgement then it is reasonable to ask him to resign.

For example, if you didn't actually do anything legally wrong, but made it look an awful lot like you did by screwing up and being a dick about it, and you're a company executive, then you can resign or get fired.

I suspect that this is not a million miles from what happened here: not actual discrimination, but enough of a blunder to look like it.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#85

Post by nymph »

baby wrote: post #48
nymph wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a lot of specific stuff she mentioned that seemed inappropriate. Such as?

I was wondering as well since this is the first time that I learn about the issue: http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes...

Thanks.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#86

Post by tptacek »

ender7 wrote: post #81

"We didn't do anything illegal, or that would leave us vulnerable to a lawsuit" is about the only content that this blog post contains. While Horvath characterized much of her woes as being gender-related [1], the investigation could have classified most of them as either unprovable or terrible-but-not-provably-sexist (in particular, the behavior of the Preston-Werners). I doubt it will ever be clear what actually ha…

You're right. It will never be clear what actually happened. I think Internet message boards create the perception that outcomes like that are rare. They're not: they're the norm. That's how it's supposed to be. We don't get to know everything and we need to work within the limits of our knowledge.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#87

Post by chrismonsanto »

nymph wrote: post #69
nymph wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a lot of specific stuff she mentioned that seemed inappropriate. Such as?

Downvoters: Would you mind explaining yourselves? It was a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

I didn't downvote you, but this is a hot-button issue right now. A lot of people are familiar with what happened, and (perhaps wrongly) assume that everyone else is as well. Assuming that context, your post can be interpreted as "I don't think that the things said Horvath brought up were a big deal", where you might have meant "I'm not familiar with this subject, what did she bring up that was so bad?"

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#88

Post by pistle »

joevandyk wrote: post #37

Tom Preston-Werner's response: http://tom.preston-werner.com/2014/04/21/farewell-github-hel...

It would be nice to not see the harassment word prefaced with "gender-based." This parsing, by Tom, without fuller disclosure of what mistakes were made leads to the conclusion that there was some form of harassment, but that it wasn't put forth in a manner which legally falls into "gender-based," which would make github and Tom (& family) liable for those actions.

I still want to see the dramatization where the guy coder comes in professing his love, gets spurned, then spitefully removes code.

Terms like hostile, gender-based, and discrimination all have pretty specific requirements for proof.

At least HN an move forward unhappily and pull out the "tragic" word describe everything. I'm not sure we all experienced catharsis, but "tragic" will have to do.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#89

Post by onotarti »

awnird wrote: post #56
brandon272 wrote: post #29

It sounds like Mrs. Preston-Werner was a regular presence at the GitHub office and, according to Horvath, had extensive access to private information throughout GitHub's systems despite the fact that she wasn't an employee. If true, that should certainly be a privacy and security concern to any GitHub customer or user.

This is incredibly troubling. How can anyone trust GitHub, knowing that non-employees regularly had access to private information?

In my experience it is pretty common for people who bring work home with them not to be super-meticulous about preventing access to the content of the work by their families. How many people do you know who sound-proof their home office so their wife can't eavesdrop on their business calls?

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#90

Post by weixiyen »

DannyBee wrote: post #35
cjbprime wrote: post #14

There appear to have been weirdnesses around the investigation, such as Julie Ann Horvath (and other ex-employees) remaining uncontacted until it was wrapping up: https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/453298152569720832 So I don't know how much stock you can place behind the idea that the investigators GH hired, who did not contact ex-employees competently, found them blameless. The resignation probably speaks for mor…

So, remember that what Julie says about them not contacting her is itself, and allegation. Her picture proves nothing, after all. Your conclusion about "how much stock to place" does not follow, since this allegation has not been proven true. Having been involved in this sort of thing before, both on the "asked to investigate" and "asked to play witness for an employee side", i'd say the truth always lies somewhere i…

So how much stock we can expect to put into such investigations?
Post reply on HN