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

271–280 of 514 posts

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#271

Post by kelnos »

sheetjs wrote: post #183
onewaystreet wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you read Theresa Preston-Werner's post (linked above), she claims that the "mistakes and errors of judgment" were completely unrelated to the harassment story, but were discovered during the harassment investigation.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#272

Post by billiam »

mtrimpe wrote: post #185
weixiyen wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cu…

"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."

That is the single best line I've read about work culture in software companies in......ever.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#273

Post by wankerrific »

lexcorvus wrote: post #225
dreamfactory2 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cofou…

I think its pretty telling that this an anonymous account and that no one is will to attach their name to the Medium post.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#274

Post by lsc »

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…

well, a co-founder was pressured or embarrassed into resigning, no? that's not a lawsuit, sure, or even a firing, but it's certainly a big deal.

Certainly, if it was a case of the guy getting pressured to leave, one could make the case that the company recognized that they had a problem and tried to get rid of said problem in the way that was least likely to get them sued, by asking someone to resign. And really, if you are an executive, and are asked to resign, what are you gonna do? You're gonna resign, and try to make it seem like a voluntary thing. Even if everyone knows you actually got your ass fired, it shows that you are the sort of executive who will play the game and not take down the rest of the company if you get in trouble.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#275

Post by abalone »

This anonymous post from an alleged GitHub employee adds some interesting perspective.[1] It alleges Julie Ann Horvath was actually spreading rumors of a personal nature about the founder's wife before any of this. In other words, Horvath was the bully, and she really didn't like having the tables turned on her.

If true, this would be a very difficult employee to keep at the company. She should have been fired for inappropriate behavior rather than given an elevated role (which she can now use to bolster her case). Very poor handling and it does suggest a degree of naivety on the part of management.

Having said that, the founder's wife also admits that her actions were a role in his departure.[2] It sounds like she had way too much free reign at the company and was making people uncomfortable with her activism around her startup. The fact that she presented herself to Horvath as having a lot of influence and power within the company reflects that. Plus it's a fertile ground for more serious transgressions into company privacy and so forth. Also should've been nipped in the bud early on.

[1] https://medium.com/p/d96f431f4e8e

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

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#277

Post by LordHumungous »

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.

Sounds plausible, but without a name to back it up it is nothing but hearsay.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#278

Post by abalone »

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…

Don't forget this link, the anonymous GitHub employee response to Horvath's claims: "Facts Conveniently Withheld".

https://medium.com/p/d96f431f4e8e

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#279

Post by sheetjs »

kelnos wrote: post #271
sheetjs wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

If you read Theresa Preston-Werner's post (linked above), she claims that the "mistakes and errors of judgment" were completely unrelated to the harassment story, but were discovered during the harassment investigation.

That's Theresa's claim (if we are going to play he-said-she-said we might as well be consistent). The official response does not suggest that the errors of judgment were unrelated to the subject at hand

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#280

Post by gfodor »

wankerrific wrote: post #273
lexcorvus wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cofou…

I think its pretty telling that this an anonymous account and that no one is will to attach their name to the Medium post.

Not really. You'd have to be an idiot to attach your name to this given the shitstorm twitter would unleash upon you for questioning the narrative. No idea if it's true but in this environment anonymity is probably the default.
Post reply on HN