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

281–290 of 514 posts

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#281

Post by beaner »

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…

Wow. Wait, what? How is this not more widely known?

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#282

Post by nailer »

bitlord_219 wrote: post #228
hntaway wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What was her alternate version of the missing events? It's hard to believe the techCrunch story when it starts so late in the game.

If I was in a similar position I'd take it to court, but if for some reason I wanted to do trial by media, I'd be gushing with detail.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#284

Post by foohbarbaz »

What an ugly mess!

Somewhat related: I am amazed now much gossiping goes on in an entirely male work group behind other people's backs. Males are definitely worse than females in that regard. I would not be surpised if allegations were true. A bunch if primadonna devs can be nasty to work with. Just stay away and separate work and life.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#285

Post by DannyBee »

calibraxis wrote: post #211
DannyBee wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

First, I demanded nothing. I pointed out one should not assume something is true because someone, particularly someone with a clear interest in the outcome and process, said it.

Second, This is somewhat pedantic. The OP simply assumed what whatever Jane said was true, and then went from there.

Your complaint is essentially that i did not add the words "in every case i have been part of, and every one i know about in sufficient independent detail" in front of "always". All told, that's about 43 cases.

Feel free to pretend i did write that, if it suffices.

If not, feel free to disbelieve me!

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#286

Post by rsynnott »

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.

No evidence of legal wrongdoing, which is a pretty high bar. Many companies will expect better of their president than "did not actually act illegally".

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#287

Post by gamblor956 »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #173
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?

What about de-facto board members? Tom was on GitHub's board, it was/is a small company, I don't get how "founder's wife" is not a suitably trusted position. I mean, clearly a bad call in this case, but hindsight is 20/20, and in my small business the husbands of my co-founders are de-facto employees (And in fact board members with significant proxy voting power, simply by state law of common property). Edit: I looke…

That's not how community property works. Teresa effectively owned an indivisible half of Tom's Github stock via the community property laws, but this does not make her a board member. Board members are selected by the company pursuant to various legal mechanisms not subject to community property laws because a board position is not a "property."

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#288

Post by DannyBee »

Tloewald wrote: post #119
DannyBee wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> the truth always lies somewhere in between In my experience, the truth usually lies very strongly to one side of the spectrum, and sometimes beyond an extreme (as reasonable people often bend over backwards in giving their version of events, while unreasonable people do not), but you'll never find out for sure. E.g. in the Techcrunch piece Horvath says that the founder's wife spoke of having spies, and influencing…

You appear to have had very different experiences than me.

Horvath said the founder spoke of having spies, etc.

The founder says she did nothing of the sort, and blah blah blah I would thus expect the truth is "the founder said she kept in touch with goings-on in the company through friends" or something similarly in-between.

Not "The founder has hired spies that prepare detailed daily reports" (which would be very strongly to one side) or "the founder has no idea what goes on in the company, and knows nobody" (which would be to the other).

IMHO, of course. Maybe you have a different view of what it would mean to lean strongly to one side of the spectrum in that situation?

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#290

Post by jacalata »

Bahamut wrote: post #192
astrodust wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So "women" and "best talent" are mutually exclusive? Classy.

That was absolutely not my implication - that is an incredibly dishonest commentary on my post.

It's probably not what you meant to say, but it is a plausible reading of the actual text - it's just a slightly awkward phrasing that appears to say 'the best talent won't care, but women might' which casts them as disjoint groups.
Post reply on HN