441–450 of 514 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that people that can and do bring work home are employed in fields where one does not need to be super meticulous about preventing access to the work.
You would think wrong. Very wrong.
http://www.businessinsider.com/julie-ann-horvath-github-hara...
Maybe I'm being uncharitable, but based on her [JAH] public statements I have a hard time taking her version of events 100% at face value. The drama to fact ratio feels high.
> "Company perks : witch hunts, snow cones and silencing"
> "I am not a victim. I'm someone that a company's negligence pushed too far, for too long. I am living, breathing consequence"
> "Leaving GitHub was the best decision of my life"
> "Hmm still no mention of the man who bullied me out of our code base because I _wouldn't_ fuck him. Too popular to be accountable, I guess"
Is Github that awful? I'm not seeing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Most corporate startup lawyers have founder's spouses sign release forms for to clearly indicate that they do not have some claim to ownership or equity.
I just drafted a stock purchase agreement for my business partner and I on our new startup and one of the basic boilerplate additions to the stock purchase / vesting agreement is a spousal agreement to the terms of the purchase.
The communal property law only relates during a divorce were the shares are split up between the couple by the courts. Any decently written stock purchase agreement has a first right of refusal for the company to purchase back those shares in the event of an involuntary transfer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would think wrong. Very wrong.
You know a lot of people that bring work home because the living room has better reading light than the SCIF?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would appear to be relevant because she describes herself as an engineer, and because she thought the reverts of her code and bad performance reviews were due to sexism.
Care to explain the downvote?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is incredibly troubling. How can anyone trust GitHub, knowing that non-employees regularly had access to private information?
In my experience it is pretty common for people who bring work home with them not to be super-meticulous about preventing access to the content of the work by their families. How many people do you know who sound-proof their home office so their wife can't eavesdrop on their business calls?
So, guy who wrote GitHub and a ton of open source stuff is ousted from his own company and sacrificed for a person whos biggest accomplishment in open source is JavaScript for Cats? https://github.com/nrrrdcore/javascript-for-cats
The guy who wrote Github is responsible for some of the worst coding atrocities in a major piece of F/OSS. (Evidence: the Linguist debacle.) JS for Cats is, in comparison to Linguist, a work of towering intellect.
Googling didnt bring up anything obvious,
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.
And this speaks, in many ways, to the purpose of HR. It's not good enough to say "We don't think we have a hostile work environment", or "Asking around seems to show that we don't have a hostile work environment". You need to be able to say: "Here's why there is no way we can have a hostile work environment, and how we're taking action to ensure we don't". Part of it is policies, part of it documentation of events, p…
I'm skeptical. The fact that there is a documented procedure isn't nothing, but it's not that much more than that. I suspect if I went back and counted, a strong plurality of the "I worked in a hostile male environment" accounts I've read occurred in companies with HR departments and explicit sexual harassment policies- GitHub was pretty unique. I've worked in ten-person companies with an HR person.
What an HR department does is make sure management doesn't get sued. The culture of the company isn't something they can control by fiat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt there will ever be any clear explanation on what happened. Two sides of the story basically tell two different stories. As someone mentioned in the post, Julie posted some tweets in response to Github's announcement today. ( https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore ) 1. Bullying someone into quitting: Illegal. 2. Asking an employee to relay private conversations between her and her partner: Illegal. 3. Justifying the ha…
You can never know which side of the story is true, but it's worth noting that one side of the story looks crazy and the other does not. It's hard to quantify the smell of crazy, but we can start with an overwhelming interest in insulting the other party, and the claims stretch credibility. For example, consider the claim that a man "bullied [her] out of our code base because I wouldn't fuck him". This is a very stro…