Results of the GitHub Investigation • Hacker News Board

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#181

Post by theothermkn » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:14 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #53

falcolas wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that the denial is couched in the terminology "there was no legal wrongdoing". Not that there was no wrongdoing, just nothing blatant enough (or which left evidence) that it broke laws.

No, the denial says "no evidence exists to support the claim". That's a direct and testable assertion, not weasel words.

"[D]irect and testable assertion" sounds scientific, certainly. It would be interesting to hear how you would flesh that out, though. For example, when they say "no evidence exists," don't we immediately run into the question of whether the claims of Ms. Horvath don't actually constitute evidence? What does constitutes "evidence"? Is that question testable? If Ms. Horvath's claims don't count as evidence, then why does Github's claim that "no evidence exists" count? What test or tests do you propose?

Criminal and civil investigations are not scientific investigations. They may make use of science, but they are not scientific. To import the language of science--actually neo-Popperian pop-cultural language about science--into a discussion of an internal investigation into harassment claims is highly suspect.

Your claim aside, these are weasel words. The way to discover the fact that they are is to appropriately apply language akin to that of jurisprudence, rather than inappropriately apply that of science.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#182

Post by volune » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:14 PM UTC

iandanforth wrote: post #79

This makes me sad. My interpretation of these events was that a toxic employee instigated a witch hunt and was successful. By simple observation of numbers here, you probably disagree with this. But for the few of you that do agree with this point of view, take it as a reminder of the crucial role of hiring. You can easily hire the person who ruins your company's culture and causes your downfall.

totally correct. disgruntled employees should just keep their mouth shut and quit.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#183

Post by sheetjs » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:14 PM UTC

onewaystreet wrote: post #166

CocaKoala wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would submit that at least one person thought it was a hostile work environment.

At every company in the world you can find at least one person who hates their job or has problems with their coworkers. I'm not sure they are the person you go to for a fair opinion.

> the investigator did find evidence of mistakes and errors of judgment.

GitHub isn't denying that there were problems and isn't claiming that her story is a complete fabrication. They merely said they don't believe they will lose a lawsuit over it. If anything, they validated that her opinion was fair

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#184

Post by theorique » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:14 PM UTC

marincounty wrote: post #77

"Because I would hear ‘We should hire more women!’ on almost a daily basis from the same people who kind of refused to respect me as a peer." I don't know what went on here, but I have heard these words before. And most of the time it has nothing to do with gender. (As to hn deleting comments--I don't understand the moderators. I posted something earlier about the divide between the rich/poor--and claimed something a…

"We should hire more women", when said to a person of the female sex, does not necessarily or automatically mean, "we should hire you".

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#185

Post by mtrimpe » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:14 PM UTC

weixiyen wrote: post #132

ender7 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only problem for GitHub now is finding a way to attract talent. If your best response to "You have a hostile work environment." is "We don't have a provably illegal hostile work environment." then that doesn't inspire great confidence when evaluating it as a place to work.

I believe they hired HR and put new policies in place. Chances are this incident will make it a better place to work than before.

True. Chances are also that our collective estimate of how great a place it is to work at are now more accurate.

That probably says more about the mythological status they had before than about the reality now, but it of course will have an impact on their ability to hire though.

It also should have, and it's normal, and it's how startups turn into big-corps, and that's just the way things are.

The sad truth about culture is that a sustainable culture will feel much more like your parents home than your college dorm; and that will never change... because it's a good thing.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#186

Post by mhd » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:15 PM UTC

kybernetyk wrote: post #125

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.

> If true, that should certainly be a privacy and security concern to any GitHub customer or user. We left github private repo hosting when they got VC funding. Because of such a scenario where we could be competing with a company that was funded by the same VC that gave GH money. Now in a perfect world that shouldn't be a problem because the VC should never access private user data. But well ... as you see it's not…

Wouldn't that rule out any corporation, too? Not much difference between VCs and large shareholders.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#187

Post by theorique » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:15 PM UTC

jfc wrote: post #165

These memos are often more about what isn't said: > The investigation found no evidence... This doesn't mean there isn't any evidence--it just means that their internal investigation didn't find any. If read carefully, this statement tells us nothing about the universe of evidence that exists, but only about what GitHub didn't find. A different investigator might come to a completely different conclusion, or find oth…

But reading carefully, you often find that the statements don't tell you very much, if anything.

It sounds like the lawyers earned their $600/hr then.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#188

Post by seanhandley » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:15 PM UTC

Hope that Julie publishes a detailed account. Sources I've read so far are vague and subjective as to what actually happened.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#189

Post by volune » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:16 PM UTC

What a crock of shit. People don't typically quit companies they built from the ground up when they have "done nothing wrong".

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#190

Post by marshray » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:16 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #115

awnird wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why does anyone trust _______, knowing that employees regularly have access to your private information?

That's the $BB++ cloud question, isn't it?

In short, many vendors go to great expense to vet, audit, and limit the number of employees who could potentially access customer data. Some will geo-locate physically separate systems under separate administration according to regional necessity.

Disclosure: works for such a vendor.