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

211–220 of 514 posts

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#211

Post by calibraxis »

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…

You demand a higher standard of evidence than you yourself meet. Especially when you say "always", with zero evidence or plausibility. (And in fact, it's a standard of evidence HN rarely meets, on any subject.) The other poster was ironically much more careful.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#212

Post by yuhong »

michaelt wrote: post #135
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…

Hiring outsiders to investigate your management team for wrongdoing is like hiring outsiders to evaluate your environmental performance or to make recommendations on executive pay - possibly useful if you genuinely want to act on their findings, but equally often used to add a sheen of 'independent' legitimacy to whatever result you want. Outsiders know what answer you want, and know it's unprofitable to have a reput…

I wonder if Tom know this.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#213

Post by marshray »

throwaway1991 wrote: post #106
mef wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theresa Preston-Werner's response https://medium.com/p/2fe173c44215

Theresa is full of it. I have no idea what happened at Github but she's been telling people in New York she started Omakase because she's "angry with the tech industry." With that kind of attitude it's no surprise Github employees felt pressured into volunteering for her. She has admitted that she's not just someone excited about her new venture, she is beginning conversations with the idea that she knows what's best…

That does sound like a little more than the boss bringing around the Girl Scout Cookies signup sheet.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#214

Post by facepalm »

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…

"This doesn't mean there isn't any evidence--it just means that their internal investigation didn't find any."

How could you ever claim anything else, though? You can only make a claim about the things you did find (including absence of things), not about things you didn't find, because you can not know about them.

This is just another example of human communication depending on goodwill. If some involved parties want to misinterpret everything they hear, there is no way to stop them.

I think the emphasis on "gender based" stuff is because that was the gist of Horvath's accusations.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#216

Post by venomsnake »

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?

i don't trust them. I simply have no choice.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#217

Post by bitlord_219 »

leccine wrote: post #193
bitlord_219 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you suggest she should have responded, rather than calling them out publicly?

First of all, if you have problem with your employment you sit down with your manager or your peers and talk about it. If you can resolve the case right there great if not, escalate. If you still think that they mistreat you, get a lawyer. Going public with accusations that you can't prove is certainly not the way. Look at her now, you think that there is any company on this planet which is going to risk the same pro…

When it's the CEO who you have a problem with, how do you escalate beyond him?

> Look at her now, you think that there is any company on this planet which is going to risk the same process that was done to Github on a maximum mediocre engineer? I don't think so.

She already has another job with &yet. I'm curious though, what makes you think she's a "maximum mediocre engineer"?

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#218

Post by jessaustin »

leccine wrote: post #179
johansch wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that even remotely similar in terms of conflict of interest on the part of the buyer?

You know a company hire another companies to perform a check. They usually expect everything ok. Audit comes, it turns out there is a security hole in the software, or your books are off or you threat employees badly. Nobody wants these, yet everybody hires external companies. You think that you can bribe a legal firm to give you a green flag on harassing employees and they gonna risk their reputation on 50K USD? I d…

Accounting firms provide a pretty good counter-example here. Everyone thinks of Andersen, who actually had to close as a result of their "customer-focused" service at Enron, but actually all the "big" firms were implicated to varying degrees in the subsequent unpleasant business with CDOs. Any service business will hesitate to piss off the guy who hires them every year.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#219

Post by dreamfactory2 »

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…

Going by the TC account (and taking the account there at face value) it sounds very much like bullying of an individual rather than anything gender-based. What's missing is why they got so paranoid about her as a potential troublemaker in the first place before they (allegedly) started handling it like chumps.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#220

Post by smrtinsert »

I wonder why his wife had to be at Github at all. I've worked at half a dozen startups now. Never would a spouse of either gender be in the office, and if they happened to maybe communicate with anyone, it was only a quick introduction and then they got out of your way.

I would consider it highly inappropriate.

Post reply on HN