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

451–460 of 514 posts

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#451

Post by pdonis »

personZ wrote: post #331
pdonis wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unprofessional workplaces are generally celebrated in the tech community, often for good reason Why for good reason? Do you have any specific examples in mind?

Unprofessional workplaces- Limited or no dress code No set hours Limited involvement of HR Wide degree of responsibility -- limited written work descriptions Amorphous groups of collaboration that develop and disband And on and on. Most technology companies, even once they are larger, try to hold onto those "unprofessional" traits. A strong HR group with heavy controls limit or eradicate the ability for some of the l…

I think there's a key distinction here between "unprofessional" traits that can enhance productivity, vs. unprofessional traits that kill productivity.

I agree that the former are good things and should be preserved where possible. (And not just in technology companies; some time ago I remember reading about a study that looked at various heavy industrial companies--auto manufacturers were one type--and found that the most productive ones were the ones that had many of the things you cite: limited or no dress code, limited HR involvement, limited written work descriptions and a lot of autonomy given to workers.)

However, the Github case appears to be an example of the latter. I don't think that's something to be celebrated.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#452

Post by hamburglar »

aaronem wrote: post #421
vulf wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GitHub should have implemented a blocking mechanism to stop people inviting Zed to 'dick' projects They did: https://github.com/blog/862-block-the-bullies They never admitted to it being a response to the incident with Zed, but the timing was too convenient. That blog post was dated 05/31/2011. Zed's commits to the repo in question happened on 05/28/2011: https://github.com/moron5/dongml/commit/f4b8df910e4048202768…

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the sequence of events was there. As best I've been able to work out, whatever juvenile oaf created the "dongml" repo added Shaw to it in order to harass him somehow, and Shaw responded by writing a script to constantly commit changes to the repo which essentially rendered it empty, which seems reasonable both as retaliation in that specific case, and for general reasons of…

You're close. Someone added Zed to the dongml repo just to be annoying, and Zed removed himself. But the inviter just added him again, and Zed complained that there isn't any sort of confirmation to indicate, "yes, I'd like to be part of this project," so people can add you against your will, which happened repeatedly to Zed with dongml. Eventually, Zed retaliated with his commit bot, and github apparently looked at that situation and decided that it would be best if they added a feature that let you block other users. However, the idea wasn't that dongml would block Zed's malicious commits, it was that Zed would be able to block the person that kept adding him to dongml. In other words, the github feature wasn't to prevent Zed's malicious checkins directly, but rather block the behavior that annoyed him into making them in the first place.

Zed wrote up a long blog post telling the whole story but I think it's been deleted since.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#453

Post by locusm »

notatoad wrote: post #330
caycep wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Zed will standup to anyone being a fuckwit - big difference. Has naught to do with liking conflict.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#454

Post by Gorkys »

emocakes wrote: post #316
nhangen wrote: post #49

Silly thing these gender based politics and acts of political correctness. I can guarandamntee you that if I was Tom and was innocent, mistakes in judgment aside, I would not be resigning from MY COMPANY. Is this the result of new board members coming in post-investment? If so, it's more reason to stay bootstrapped and free. If not, who is there to pressure him other than Chris? Edit: 4 downvotes without a single com…

in regards to misplaced frustration and angst, pretty much, tech is mostly filled with frustrated, unattractive (physical and personality wise) middle aged men, who believe that the only way to find a mate is to swallow this liberal agenda so as to make themselves appear as more of a 'nice guy', and thus in their twisted little heads, becoming more attractive to members of the opposite sex. Typical beta mentality. ed…

Or maybe there are some men who are aware that things aren't always as easy in the tech industry for women as they are for men.

Because they, you know, listen to the majority of women in tech, who say this is in fact the case.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#455

Post by abvdasker »

doktrin wrote: post #443

I have not followed this case. However, this just rolled across my FB feed : 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 compa…

There's a strong current of spitefulness in those Twitter posts. While I understand that Horvath is clearly livid, and obviously not without some reason, that kind of public vitriol would make me question anyone's rationality.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#456

Post by erikpukinskis »

rinon wrote: post #162

Maybe it's just me, but I don't really think speculating on fights like this from the outside without full and complete information is beneficial, or even sane and rational. Can we just all agree that we don't know the full story here, and that any and all players might be misleading or not telling the whole story publicly? This is an internal issue. The only opinions I am interested in are internal opinions of other…

I think it has merit, essentially a form of play. Kittens will act out various attacks on each other, even though there is no real threat. It allows them to work through various solutions to problems in advance, so that when they are in real danger they have already practiced, and will be able to learn more quickly.

You are right that we don't, can't know the truth. So what we do is we map out a space of possible realities and talk through as many of them as we feel inclined to. We try to figure out where the line is that a founder's wife mustn't cross. We try to understand how common sexual harassment is, and what the probabilities are that any given accusation is truthful. These discussions aren't oriented towards reaching any sort of verdict. That is for the courts, and the coworkers. Instead what we need to do is a kind of cartography. Is there a mountain there? How big is it? What are the routes across it?

I think these issues are supremely important, because I think sexism in tech is like a giant hole in our rowboat that we are constantly having to bail out, and I think our organizations will be much more efficient if we can get better representation of diverse skills and viewpoints. And I also believe that rare events can make an outsized impact on a project. And that with such issues you rarely get second chances. And I believe that some of the traps that exist are on a hair trigger, and are very difficult to see. So I think putting energy into "play" ahead of time is very important.

You don't want to be going for the jugular only to realize you've never tried out your claws.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#458

Post by erikpukinskis »

smtddr wrote: post #113
jpiasetz wrote: post #84

Julie Ann Horvath has posted a bunch of interesting tweets about it starting here https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/458340919721197568

Somehow, I don't think she's doing what is in her best interest right now. The guy has resigned and the tech media is totally on this story right now. Any small _preceived_ misstep and she could end up being labeled another "Adria Richards". Also, the question[1] in her current github background appears to represent a suggestive joke that I would have never guessed she'd be comfortable with. Not saying this is any ki…

For what it's worth, I want to point out that many of us don't even think Adria Richards is an "Adria Richards".

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#459

Post by anaphor »

rurounijones wrote: post #448
Allan_Smithee wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

More info? I have never heard of anything bad about Linguist (And I don't know that much about it.). Googling didnt bring up anything obvious,

Parent might be referring to the fact that it can easily give false positives, but I'm not sure.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#460

Post by asabjorn »

sheetjs wrote: post #361
lobotryas wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes Horvath's claim have any more bearing than Theresa's? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

A priori, Horvath's claim has no more bearing than Theresa's. That part is very clear and it takes a very strained interpretation of my words to conclude I automatically assumed Horvath was correct. My first comment was in response to onewaystreet's comment "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…

> if what she were saying is true, the official response would have made it clear that the investigation uncovered issues unrelated to the situation at hand.

That is not obvious, and I think it is impossible for us to figure out why the PR agency/HR/management/investors/lawyers that crafted this statement was not more specific and what it means that they did not say something. Only reading the report itself or getting a full summary of it can help with that.

Post reply on HN