Results of the GitHub Investigation • Hacker News Board

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#511

Post by malandrew » Thu, Apr 24, 2014, 10:01 PM UTC

jdefarge wrote: post #507

malandrew wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be fascinating to see the commit in question. If the commit has technical merit and should not have been reverted, why would you not focus on demonstrating why the technical merit of the commit in question? Claiming that a commit was reverted for personal reasons instead of defending the technical merits of the commit strikes me as naïve. A highly competent person who has produced some work product that was…

Exactly! I had the curiosity to check JAH's github profile too, and it raised more suspicious towards her than I had previously imagined. For a fair comparison, let's see a couple of female github repos (both frontend and backend): https://github.com/pamelafox?tab=repositories https://github.com/kellabyte?tab=repositories https://github.com/gwenshap?tab=repositories See? Any of those smart women above has much more q…

Exactly. This whole situation reminds me of this excellent article by Susan Sons in Linux Journal, that everyone with an opinion on gender and software should read.

http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/girls-and-software

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#512

Post by gjvc » Fri, Apr 25, 2014, 7:36 AM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #174

gjvc wrote: post #118

github is not seeing another penny of my money.

Because Tom didn't demand they go balls-to-the-wall fighting what may be an inevitably losing battle to disprove something that isn't disprovable? I don't know what happened, but this outcome might be very much in Tom's well-considered best interests. You are making a no-win situation. EDIT : Heck, I don't even know if you are mad at GitHub for insufficiently defending Tom or insufficiently crucifying him

https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/459358875213238272

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#513

Post by heathkit » Fri, Apr 25, 2014, 9:31 AM UTC

cynicalkane wrote: post #370

jw2013 wrote: post #313

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…

That actually sounds extremely plausible to me. I mean, I don't think the guy literally said to himself "she won't fuck me, revert!"

What I imagine happened is some guy at work had a crush on her and made an awkward pass at her. Maybe he tried to smell her hair or something, I don't know. She shot him down, then he got all butthurt and started undoing her commits on the projects they worked on together. Because they were painful reminders of her.

From his perspective, he's a sensitive guy who just got rejected and isn't coping well. But to her, he's the guy deleting her code because she wouldn't fuck him.

That doesn't seem crazy at all to me. It seems totally possible, and just the kind of situation competent HR departments are supposed to prevent and mitigate.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#514

Post by heathkit » Fri, Apr 25, 2014, 9:35 AM UTC

nailer wrote: post #250

ender7 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only problem for GitHub now is finding a way to attract talent. If your best response to "You have a hostile work environment." is "We don't have a provably illegal hostile work environment." then that doesn't inspire great confidence when evaluating it as a place to work.

If you want to know if GitHub is a hostile work environment according to women who work there, take a poll of current and past female employees, including Horvath. I did. So far it's working out in GitHub's favour. But maybe I missed something, so do your own research.

The best part is, 15% of GitHub's employees are women, and only 6 of them are developers. So you could actually do a really accurate survey with a small sample size!