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

321–330 of 514 posts

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#321

Post by ddebernardy »

Mtinie wrote: post #142
ddebernardy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post is PR-speak for: > "We found lots of ugly stuff but would rather not mention any of it in public, so move along, nothing to see"

Is the expectation that the public should be privy to that ugly stuff? (Asking because I'm curious of other's opinions on the matter, not because I'm questioning your statement)

Speaking for myself, I couldn't care less. But then I wasn't following the story at all to begin with.

The truth though is that this isn't the kind of stuff we continental Europeans care much about. Heck, we elect notorious pussy hounds as presidents around here, so I imagine that whatever the guy did is benign compared to Berlusconi's sex orgies with barely legal (or not legal at all) prostitutes. (Not saying it's any good, mind you. Just try to picture the yardsticks we have.)

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#323

Post by Crito »

stormbrew wrote: post #298
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…

Of course, if you doubt Horvath's story, what makes this one any more credible to you?

There is little to suggest to us that one account is more credible than the others. Our main take-away here should be uncertainty. We don't know what happened; we can only know what some people think happened. Considering other viewpoints, even anonymous viewpoints^, serves to highlight the inherently uncertain nature of the truth.

^ Non-anonymous viewpoints could perhaps be considered more trustworthy because there is the threat of a libel/slander lawsuit if they are complete fabrications. However on the other hand, all/most of the non-anonymous viewpoints that we have are the viewpoints of people directly involved in the scandal. We can assume that the anonymous viewpoint, if it is not a fabrication, is not from somebody involved in the scandal. However since they were not involved directly in it, it is also possible that they received an incomplete picture of everything... Everything is uncertain. I am reminded of the closing dialog to "Burn After Reading".

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#324

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#325

Post by kelnos »

neilk wrote: post #265
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.

Anonymous allegations are worthless unless other Githubbers can confirm this.

Why? You'd still have the same sense of doubt as to whether or not the non-anonymous person is telling the truth. The only extra information you'd have is a) you'd know it was coming from another GitHubber who could conceivably know these details, and b) if you know the person, you can weigh the words against his/her reputation and past action.

Not saying those two things aren't useful, but I would certainly not characterize this anon blog post as "worthless" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it makes the whole situation make a lot more sense. The original one-sided account from Ms. Horvath always sounded a bit implausible to me, at least without more information to frame it.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#326

Post by chippy »

mtrimpe wrote: post #312
abalone wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget this link, the anonymous GitHub employee response to Horvath's claims: "Facts Conveniently Withheld". https://medium.com/p/d96f431f4e8e

Let's not go there. Incorporating random anonymous posts will only make things worse. For all we know Julie-Ann started dating someone close to Theresa Preston-Werner who shared that he, and several others, slept with her and could even be the father of Tom's child and then refused to distance himself from Theresa. When she shared this sad state of affairs in her private love life with some colleagues she was suddenl…

>if Julie wants to share this story so publicly then everyone should at least have all of the story

the whole thing is crass and distasteful to my british sensibilities, but if this the future of how conflict in internet corporations is represented, then we shouldn't be surprised to see allegations from all sides. The key skills that we as audience have to develop is critical thinking, impartiality and a good sense of decency.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#327

Post by kelnos »

LordHumungous wrote: post #277
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.

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

Even with a name to back it up, it's still hearsay. I agree that it seems plausible, though, and does make a bit of sense given the rest of what we've all heard.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#328

Post by mratzloff »

mtrimpe wrote: post #302
beaner wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If this were actually the 'truth' then you could be pretty sure some statements would have been made to implicitly discredit Julie-Ann. It's also fairly meaningless since if you interpret this story as 'Julie-Ann started dating someone close to Theresa Preston-Werner who shared he slept with her and could even be the father of Tom's child and then refused to distance himself from Theresa; a sad state of affairs which…

Not really; even if that were the case, she still had no business sharing that with work colleagues.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#329

Post by teacup50 »

stormbrew wrote: post #298
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…

Of course, if you doubt Horvath's story, what makes this one any more credible to you?

It's much closer to how people actually behave.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#330

Post by notatoad »

caycep wrote: post #237
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…

I seem to recall another big fight between Github employees and Zed Shaw of Learn Python the Hard Way fame...perhaps that was a warning sign that HR policies needed to be brought up to snuff or even created in the 1st place...

I don't think a fight between zed shaw and anybody signifies anything. Zed likes to fight.
Post reply on HN