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

301–310 of 514 posts

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#301

Post by nailer »

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…

The background is from the following scenario: DJ asks girl being interviewed what favourite position is, she responds 'CEO'.

IIRC it was 'sway in the morning'.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#302

Post by mtrimpe »

beaner wrote: post #281
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…

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 Julie-Ann shared with some colleagues,' it immediately paints an entirely different picture.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#303

Post by cpncrunch »

cpncrunch wrote: post #292
bitlord_219 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you consider this relevant?

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?

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#304

Post by EGreg »

"The investigation found no evidence to support the claims against Tom and his wife of sexual or gender-based harassment or retaliation, or of a sexist or hostile work environment."

"We still have work to do"

Which is it? A non acknowledgement acknowledgement?

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#305

Post by ganeumann »

mtrimpe wrote: post #153
voidlogic wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is all conjecture, but this series of events got me thinking about what to learn from this. I have a feeling Ms. Horvath and Mrs. Preston-Werner completely believe their own interpretations of what happened. This is a good reminder of how subtle and ambiguous our and others views of the same reality is. In her post Theresa mentions having a blind spot for the obligations that github employees felt for helping he…

In my mind this is the key sentence in her response: "I was the wife of the CEO, but that never entered my mind when I hung out with any GitHubbers." That is just not acceptable; it's the equivalent of walking around with a machine gun in your hands and saying that you never considered it might have any impact. As much as she might have liked it to, you can't wield considerable power over people's lives and have them…

The difficulty in this for founders is that when you start the company, you need your employees way more than they need you. They have more power than you do at the beginning. And while this slowly changes, it changes even more slowly in a founder's mind.

Don't get sucked into thinking you're peers with your employees when you decide how much they get paid, what work they do all day, and whether or not they keep their job. They don't see you as a peer.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#306

Post by evolve2k »

abalone wrote: post #278
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…

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

And here's Theresa Preston-Werners side of the story:

What every founder fears - https://medium.com/p/2fe173c44215

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#307

Post by MarkPNeyer »

neilk wrote: post #256
js2 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how subtle and ambiguous our and others views of the same reality is Rashomon.

Everyone thinks the message of that movie is "all truth is subjective", but it's not. It's more like "the stories we tell ourselves and others are distorted by our self-image and our interests". At the end, the movie even explicitly rejects the theory that truth is unobtainable, and that everyone is corrupt. In the movie at least, disinterested third parties who have good intentions can reveal the truth. You may beli…

i'm not sure where you're getting this. the parent referenced a movie, after posting a quote marveling at the different ways people interpret the same reality.

grandparent post was talking about the need for intellectual empathy. i've seen that work wonders in my life. it's like this thread of comments shows the need for intellectual empathy in microcosm.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#308

Post by jacalata »

samstave wrote: post #38

I have a question/observation that may be offensive, and it is not meant to be - so pardon my ignorance if this is a misguided perception: When this story first ran and I was reading JA Horvaths tweets in the surrounding days - and reading whatever other articles related to this story were - I got the impression that she didn't necessarily seem like the most easy-going-innocent victim, and I wondered; what if she was…

It certainly could be, but in general what she's accusing them of would be wrong regardless of what a terrible person she could be. If someone is a bad employee/co-worker you can fire them, but you can't bully/harass them out of the place.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#309

Post by steveklabnik »

endeavor wrote: post #238
mahyarm wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California once your company goes over a certain size (which github has), they must have a sexual harassment course presented to the employees every one or two years. In my company that was a mandatory all company meeting where a lawyer made a powerpoint presentation for a couple of hours. Then there was some sort quiz and us signing something as far as I can remember.

I believe the state requirement is for managers, not regular employees. Every 2 years I have to spend a couple hours taking a traffic-school-style online training.

I am not a lawyer, but http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications_StatLaws_SexHarrass.htm

All employees must receive info, companies > 50 need to offer two hours of classroom time within six months and then every two years.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#310

Post by mabbo »

leccine wrote: post #144
michaelt wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hiring outsiders to investigate your management team for wrongdoing is like hiring outsiders to evaluate your environmental performance or to make recommendations on executive pay - possibly useful if you genuinely want to act on their findings, but equally often used to add a sheen of 'independent' legitimacy to whatever result you want. Outsiders know what answer you want, and know it's unprofitable to have a reput…

Or hiring an outsider to perform a security audit. It never works. Right.

Someone hired to do a security audit has a huge incentive to find security flaws- frankly, they'll get a better reputation for alerting the company to them.

Finding bad news when you're a security auditor is good.

Someone hired to do an investigation like this has an incentive to downplay any results. If they agreed with the accusations, GitHub would either have to hide the results, or publicly say "Yeah, we think we were likely legally liable for a hostile and sexually abusive work environment". They would not be taking those auditors out for celebratory drinks.

If the consultant says "Yep, you're in the clear", GitHub can announce publicly how great everything is.

Finding bad news when you're investigating a PR disaster is bad.

Post reply on HN