Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 473 posts

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#321

Post by tomp »

nathell wrote: post #319
aceperry wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People: when did our brains melt and spill out of our ears?" When the topic is as controversial as sexism in tech and the workplace. Or whatever the flashpoint happens to be at the moment. Like sequoia, I've noticed that controversial topics brings out the most incredible responses from both sides, and often with very little definitive evidence. To me, this is a sign of how deeply felt this topic is, and how much it…

In an ideal world, this should really be a no-brainer. Gender-background abuse should be an abhorred practice, the way we normally abhor, say, killing people. It is telling that the topic of sexism in tech and the workplace is controversial at all.

I think a more appropriate analogy is "abortion". Some see it as killing people, others see it as having control over their own lives. Same here - some see it as sexual discrimination, others see it as problems many people have to face at their workplace.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#322

Post by elliotanderson »

hrktb wrote: post #306
sequoia wrote: post #248

When I arrived at this thread, comment two was 'using the information available in the short techcrunch article, I'm now going to PROVE, point by point, how Horvath's claims are false.' Comment three was 'aha they issued a vague apology, this is basically a FULL ADMISSION that everything Horvath said was true!' People: when did our brains melt and spill out of our ears? There is not enough public information present…

This statement has more meaning that you are willing to concede. If they are starting now to investigate, it means that when troubles were occuring, or even when Julia H. gave her demission, they didn't care enough to investigate thoroughly (perhaps they have other priorities, that's just a fact). This in itself is not good looking, and I feel that from there whatever really happened, they won't have the full version…

Chris took over the role as GitHub's CEO from Tom at the end of January. Given the timeline in the TechCrunch article, these events unfolded under the previous CEO's tenure so it would be appropriate to reinvestigate the claims independently of any previous findings.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#323

Post by tomp »

PakG1 wrote: post #260

The actions that Github has taken lends credibility to what Horvath has said. Of course, we'll not know the whole truth until sometime in the future, if ever. Even if this episode were only hypothetical, this episode reminds me that many people have poor decision-making abilities, even if they are super intelligent. A co-founder of a company like Github would and should have a very good brain and very good decision-m…

Wow, you make it sound so easy.

> Not being able to communicate with people and ascertain the truth of the matter. Someone had to lie to cause him to accuse Horvath of lying: either his wife lied or Horvath lied, and he didn't appear to do a good job of getting the truth and resolving the situation.

Sure, and a good managers should have no problem figuring out things that can take police and the courts years and years.

> If it's a poor marriage decision, he wouldn't be the first person in history, people from all walks of life seem to make poor marriage decisions all the time.

How is that relevant, and what exactly does that even mean? You don't really know who the person is and will be when you're getting married, you're just making a bet that they really are who you think they are, and that they wouldn't change in the future. If this episode is true, they can either do what married people should do (stick together, learn, communicate, support each other, and resolve the issues), or they can say "fuck it, we're stupid and made a poor marriage decision", and separate.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#324

Post by tomp »

SolarNet wrote: post #232
curiousgeorgio wrote: post #208

Of course we may never know for sure exactly what was said (unless everything was secretly recorded somehow... NSA - data, please), but my initial reaction is that this story sounds a bit... exaggerated. Were things said that shouldn't have been said? Probably so. But here's the way I read it from TC: Let's look at what Horvath claims: > character started being discussed in inappropriate places like on pull requests…

Actually of all of these the last one is the only one I think your counter is flat out wrong (all the others seem plausible enough). Why? Because gawking at other co-workers (regardless of genders) in a casual environment is not ok. In a casual work environment people often do light exercise, and they need to feel comfortable to do that without being turned into sex objects. I would hope the men in question have enou…

> You are basically using the same logic as countries that require burqas in public.

Noone is saying that women shouldn't be hula-hooping, we're just saying that it's not wrong for others (men included) to watch them if they do.

You, on the other hand, are saying that men should avert their gazes to avoid making women uncomfortable, which is much closer to the burqa logic, albeit with genders reversed.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#325

Post by brazzy »

nathell wrote: post #319
aceperry wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People: when did our brains melt and spill out of our ears?" When the topic is as controversial as sexism in tech and the workplace. Or whatever the flashpoint happens to be at the moment. Like sequoia, I've noticed that controversial topics brings out the most incredible responses from both sides, and often with very little definitive evidence. To me, this is a sign of how deeply felt this topic is, and how much it…

In an ideal world, this should really be a no-brainer. Gender-background abuse should be an abhorred practice, the way we normally abhor, say, killing people. It is telling that the topic of sexism in tech and the workplace is controversial at all.

> It is telling that the topic of sexism in tech and the workplace is controversial at all.

Yes - it tells use that it's a deeply emotional and often deeply subjective topic where situations can be interpreted very differently depending on your point of view and you do not necessarily have as clear a villain and victim as people like to have.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#326

Post by brazzy »

freshfunk wrote: post #317
ceol wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GitHub's response neither confirms nor denies any part of the story. Well, they do say: We know we have to take action and have begun a full investigation. While that’s ongoing, and effective immediately, the relevant founder has been put on leave, as has the referenced GitHub engineer. The founder’s wife discussed in the media reports has never had hiring or firing power at GitHub and will no longer be permitted i…

Yup. This, to me, is a partial admission of guilt. Why else would they take such harsh, immediate action to throw him under the bus?

Because that is what the lynch mob is screaming for and anything else would be labelled as aiding and abetting sexism and discrimination against women by some people?

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#327

Post by brazzy »

SolarNet wrote: post #265
balls187 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if they weren't gawking, but instead watching? If you are hula hooping out in the open, I don't think it's fair to expect people to look away, no more than it is to expect people to look away if you were playing the hula hoop minigame in Wii Fit. Gawking and making people feel uncomfortable = bad. Watching coworkers make fools of themselves = priceless. > You are basically advocating the position of countries th…

Your first point is valid. It depends on what actually happened. But the OP's comment: "As for the hula hooping... you're telling me that two women hula hooping to music in the workplace is perfectly appropriate, but when the other people nearby (who are going to be mostly males if the majority of employees are male - go figure) suddenly notice, that's the inappropriate part? Really?". Is the part that bothered me, t…

> The logic there that I have a problem with is that it's the women's fault for being attractive, and that the man isn't at as much fault for being attracted to it because the women are doing something attractive.

How about it's nobody's fault because there is nothing fucking wrong about people doing something in public and others watching them???

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#328

Post by tomp »

guiambros wrote: post #220
allochthon wrote: post #205

I do not consider the article in TechCrunch to have presented a balanced description of the matter. I will withhold any judgment until Github have carried out an investigation. I will not presume the founder in question, his wife or the other employee to be guilty of the allegations against them until we have more information. I hope Github will be fair and impartial in their investigation.

Just the fact that the wife of an employee was consistently allowed in the building, is already a serious matter. GitHub is not a scrappy startup anymore; it's a 1 billion dollar company. You do not allow strangers to walk around the office, and much less let them invite employees to dinners to discuss internal matters. Having said that, seems that GitHub recognizes that they screwed up. The tone of their response se…

Maybe she was an informal part of github's culture ever since it was a 100$ company.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#329

Post by brazzy »

ceol wrote: post #308
sockgrant wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it implies a work environment where it is ok to sexually objectify your co-workers (or that seems to be how she took it) What? This is a case where two people did something unusual in a work environment and garnered the attention of their coworkers. That's expected. It's unexpected that you think it necessarily implies sexual objectification. Go stand in the middle of your office tomorrow and hoola hoop. Whatever s…

> This is a case where two people did something unusual in a work environment and garnered the attention of their coworkers. That's expected. Did this ever say it was in their office? All it said was they were hula-hooping to some music and the response from the bench-full of male employees was embarrassing. If it were outdoors, it wouldn't be unusual. Either way, in what world do you see something out of the ordinar…

> Julie was made to feel uncomfortable, and since she's the best eye witness to the event we've got, there's no reason to doubt her testimony.

Yes, but that testifies only to her personal feelings at that moment, which are not the definitive measure stick for anything.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#330

Post by brazzy »

bogs_carut wrote: post #79
joshyeager wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the wife's actions would have been even less acceptable if she were male. The stigma is caused by the repeated unprofessional actions she did, and made worse by the fact that she was not even an employee.

Why should gender affect the acceptability of one's behavior?

Because sexism.
Post reply on HN