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

221–230 of 514 posts

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#221

Post by PeterisP »

chrismonsanto wrote: post #8

> The investigation found no evidence to support the claims [...] of a sexist or hostile work environment. So, are they saying that Horvath was lying? I mean, there was a lot of specific stuff she mentioned that seemed inappropriate. I don't want to get into whether the behavior was "sexist" or not, but I think we can all agree that if what she said was true, the work environment was hostile and unprofessional.

A comment by her colleagues here https://medium.com/p/d96f431f4e8e might be relevant to this.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#222

Post by stormbrew »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #177
mtrimpe wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my mind this is the key sentence in her response: "I was the wife of the CEO, but that never entered my mind when I hung out with any GitHubbers." That is just not acceptable; it's the equivalent of walking around with a machine gun in your hands and saying that you never considered it might have any impact. As much as she might have liked it to, you can't wield considerable power over people's lives and have them…

Your comment about ignoring the considerable power you wield over other people and expecting them to hits home for me. I'm not sure exactly how to phrase it, but I think there's something there in general applicable to the current round of companies which have 'flat' organizational structures, but still aren't hardly employee-owned democratically-managed enterprises. [1] There are owners and bosses, there are people…

> I think it's more about the dangers of trying to make hieararchy and authority invisible when it actually still exists.

I want to emphasize this, because it is absolutely a thing that tends to happen even with the best of intentions from all parties. You can't eliminate hierarchy by hiding it.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#224

Post by jc4p »

atmosx wrote: post #207
kybernetyk wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You moved into a direct competitor or you rolled up your own infrastructure? I'm curious because if the company is not large , doesn't seem like much of a hassle having your own depository server.

Not the person you replied to, but we're a large company and we're using Gitlab internally, it even hooks up to LDAP which is fantastic. We still use some private Github projects too.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#225

Post by lexcorvus »

dreamfactory2 wrote: post #219
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.

This story (unfortunately now dead on Hacker News) claims to fill in what's missing:

https://medium.com/p/d96f431f4e8e

Money quote:

Around the end of 2012, Julie started dating a close male friend of the cofounder’s wife and didn’t like that they were close. She asked them to stop being friends and when they would not end their relationship, Julie started telling coworkers that the wife had affairs and that the cofounder’s newborn child was not his. She told this to multiple coworkers directly and also to the wife through her boyfriend.

This is where the wife reached out to her and the rest of her story starts. All of Julie’s story involving the cofounder’s wife occurs only after Julie was spreading vicious rumors about him to even new employees.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#226

Post by jessaustin »

tdicola wrote: post #215

So what happens when a founder leaves like this, do they give up their % ownership and the other founders gain what was lost?

I suppose it depends on how the articles of incorporation are written up, but I really doubt it would work that way. It's more likely that the leaving founder will become a sort of silent partner, retaining equity but not managerial input.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#227

Post by EC1 »

gdonelli wrote: post #32

It feels unconvincing, and unapologetic.

They owe you nothing, especially a detailed series of events. He's resigning, they posted a note, the situation is over. What more do you want?

Horvath essentially ruined this mans life through e-mobbing.

Just look @ her tweets: http://recode.net/2014/04/21/julie-ann-horvath-on-github-inv...

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#228

Post by bitlord_219 »

hntaway wrote: post #96
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…

An anonymous post on medium by github insiders: https://medium.com/p/d96f431f4e8e Unfortunate that it is anonymous, but it is still worth reading in my opinion.

It's telling that nobody would attach their name to the article. Horvath's already publicly laughed it off.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#229

Post by ballard »

dreamfactory2 wrote: post #219
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.

There was a great report on BBC World Service about folks wrongly accused and/or convicted of crimes they didn't commit (in one case, a man was on death row for a couple years). A false accusation is as damaging as authorities not paying attention. The sad truth of the human experience is that without direct evidence (video, audio recordings), only the people close to it know how they saw what happened. It's then more important to redouble efforts to preserve justice by investigating thoroughly to attempt to uncover what happened, to not revictimize the wrong party.
Post reply on HN