Results of the GitHub Investigation • Hacker News Board

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#241

Post by codeka » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:51 PM UTC

kybernetyk wrote: post #125

brandon272 wrote: post #29

It sounds like Mrs. Preston-Werner was a regular presence at the GitHub office and, according to Horvath, had extensive access to private information throughout GitHub's systems despite the fact that she wasn't an employee. If true, that should certainly be a privacy and security concern to any GitHub customer or user.

> If true, that should certainly be a privacy and security concern to any GitHub customer or user. We left github private repo hosting when they got VC funding. Because of such a scenario where we could be competing with a company that was funded by the same VC that gave GH money. Now in a perfect world that shouldn't be a problem because the VC should never access private user data. But well ... as you see it's not…

She apparently had access to employee data, not customer data. In my experience, businesses will often play a little fast-and-loose with employee data - far more so than customer data.

Though I agree it presents a bad image of GitHub's access control in general.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#242

Post by mildtrepidation » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:51 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #86

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…

You're right. It will never be clear what actually happened. I think Internet message boards create the perception that outcomes like that are rare. They're not: they're the norm. That's how it's supposed to be. We don't get to know everything and we need to work within the limits of our knowledge.

I agree, with the exception of "that's how it's supposed to be." As defined by who? Knowing what happened and understanding why makes deciding on a resolution possible. The suggestion that keeping those things vague is somehow desirable is hard to fathom, unless your perspective is that of an abusive employer who doesn't want to have to change his or her practices.

Human interaction is not black and white (don't read into that). While this situation will never be totally transparent to the vast majority of us, the necessity of working within our limited knowledge does not imply our knowledge should necessarily be limited.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#243

Post by harrystone » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:52 PM UTC

His wife says she didn't realize that soliciting contributions from her husband's employees may not be appropriate.

She pretty plainly states that it never even entered her mind. That tells me more about the atmosphere there than anything.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#244

Post by steele » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:52 PM 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

gjvc is using their small slice of economic leverage to weigh in; the motivations are no one else's business unless gjvc volunteers this. Given the baiting questions you pose, what incentive does gjvc have to address your curiosity?

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#245

Post by jfc » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:56 PM UTC

facepalm wrote: post #214

jfc wrote: post #165

These memos are often more about what isn't said: > The investigation found no evidence... This doesn't mean there isn't any evidence--it just means that their internal investigation didn't find any. If read carefully, this statement tells us nothing about the universe of evidence that exists, but only about what GitHub didn't find. A different investigator might come to a completely different conclusion, or find oth…

"This doesn't mean there isn't any evidence--it just means that their internal investigation didn't find any." How could you ever claim anything else, though? You can only make a claim about the things you did find (including absence of things), not about things you didn't find, because you can not know about them. This is just another example of human communication depending on goodwill. If some involved parties wan…

Again, in my comment I mention that this memo is no different than other corporate statements. My point is that some comments on here say "there is no evidence", which is not what the memo says. Saying you didn't find something isn't the same as saying that something doesn't exist.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#246

Post by andyl » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:56 PM UTC

Kicked out of his own company - ouch. Taking VC and giving control to outsiders is Russian roulette.

Writing and adhering to HR/conflict-of-interest policy is a no-brainer. A board who cared for the interests of its founder would not leave this as a trap for the founder to step in.

I note with interest that the other accused was given a promotion.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#247

Post by ia » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:58 PM UTC

we have one side of the story, for fuck's sake. the other side--the github side? it's lawyer-speak and completely devoid of anything that addresses the specific accusations.

how so many ostensibly smart people can simultaneously lose their ability to think critically is incredible. add the word "gender" to anything and people lose their minds.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#248

Post by chc » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:58 PM UTC

jfc wrote: post #165

These memos are often more about what isn't said: > The investigation found no evidence... This doesn't mean there isn't any evidence--it just means that their internal investigation didn't find any. If read carefully, this statement tells us nothing about the universe of evidence that exists, but only about what GitHub didn't find. A different investigator might come to a completely different conclusion, or find oth…

> These memos are often more about what isn't said:

> > The investigation found no evidence...

> This doesn't mean there isn't any evidence--it just means that their internal investigation didn't find any. If read carefully, this statement tells us nothing about the universe of evidence that exists, but only about what GitHub didn't find.

You seem to be including this as part of a narrative where this statement is phrased to disguise the truth, but the sort of "loophole" you're pointing to here is not at all revelatory. The same is true of every investigation ever — the fact that an investigation didn't find something doesn't mean it necessarily doesn't exist. This falls out of the fact that you can't prove a universal negative.

An investigation can never positively prove things. It can only establish a reasonable confidence in proportion with your confidence in the investigators.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#249

Post by hntaway1 » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:58 PM UTC

hntaway wrote: post #96

cjbprime wrote: post #14

There appear to have been weirdnesses around the investigation, such as Julie Ann Horvath (and other ex-employees) remaining uncontacted until it was wrapping up: https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/453298152569720832 So I don't know how much stock you can place behind the idea that the investigators GH hired, who did not contact ex-employees competently, found them blameless. The resignation probably speaks for mor…

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.

obvious that it's z holman.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#250

Post by nailer » Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 9:59 PM UTC

ender7 wrote: post #112

tptacek wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. It will never be clear what actually happened. I think Internet message boards create the perception that outcomes like that are rare. They're not: they're the norm. That's how it's supposed to be. We don't get to know everything and we need to work within the limits of our knowledge.

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.