Live data from Hacker News

Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

where.coraline.codes

431–440 of 572 posts

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hi cholantesh! Just saw your new survey. Looks great! Hey, have you seen the HRC's recommendations for surveying gender? I've used their guidelines in the past. Very helpful! http://www.hrc.org/resources/collecting-transgender-inclusiv... TLDR: They suggest splitting the gender question into two parts. As you know, this is a super important issue for me. Progress! Exciting! If you're busy, I'll make a pull request.…

Why thank you for that clarification! I'm quite busy but can definitely submit a PR within the next few days. Feel free to do it first and I'll take a look, though. :)

Have you guys ever heard of Victorian England? Because that's where you're headed with this kind of language.

I can't wait until we all start wearing thick, black, woollen coats in the summertime...

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of bugged me as well. Why was the review done in April but the review period ended in January? Whilst the article is (as I've pointed out elsewhere) only one side of the story, GitHub isn't that big a company, so how crap do your management processes have to be that you only get around to reviewing somebody 3 months after the review period ended? It doesn't sound like the scheduling of the review was a surp…

Do you work at a big company? If you do, take a look at your last review, comparing when you received it to the period it technically applies to. In my experience, both as a manager and an individual contributor, the periods will be offset by 2-4 months. The delivery of the review, while it feels like the start of something to the recipient, is the end of what's often a long and stressful period of planning, writing,…

[deleted]

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of bugged me as well. Why was the review done in April but the review period ended in January? Whilst the article is (as I've pointed out elsewhere) only one side of the story, GitHub isn't that big a company, so how crap do your management processes have to be that you only get around to reviewing somebody 3 months after the review period ended? It doesn't sound like the scheduling of the review was a surp…

Do you work at a big company? If you do, take a look at your last review, comparing when you received it to the period it technically applies to. In my experience, both as a manager and an individual contributor, the periods will be offset by 2-4 months. The delivery of the review, while it feels like the start of something to the recipient, is the end of what's often a long and stressful period of planning, writing,…

The last time I had to worry about this I worked for a 300-ish person company, so a little under half the size of GitHub.

We used to do 6 monthly reviews but scrapped them in favour of more regular meetings every 4 - 8 weeks, largely for the reasons you've stated. That being said, in my experience reviews are one of those tasks that take up as much time as you give them. If you only give yourself a month to gather feedback and prepare them you'll find a way to get it done, and I always wanted to work off the most current information available when meeting with members of my teams, hence doing the prep as late as possible.

As I said, GitHub is not a large company at around 700 employees, so I'm not really sure what their excuse is. The largest company I've worked for, as a contractor this time, was around 400k employees, and they seem to have much better processes around this with regular one-to-ones in the place of annual reviews, at least for permanent tech staff.

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#434
post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a book (I can't recall the name) written by a former HR professional on the actual function of HR in a corporation: a way to mitigate liability when firing people. That seems like the most plausible scenario given what I am reading from this blog post. If you were going to fire a well-known activist and you did not want to give away any ammunition for getting sued, there's a whole song and dance to make sure…

I believe the book you're referring to is called _Corporate Confidential_. People think I'm cynical when I talk about that book, but I've seen the scenarios you mention play out word for word multiple times.

Sounds like it'd be great on Audible but it's not there. Shame.

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#435
post #81

The impression I have after reading this that Ms. Ehmke had a shit attitude and people got sick of it. And that she hasn't seen that yet. I'm sorry if this seems unempathetic - getting fired sucks, and is extremely painful. But there's no other way I can put it. A long time ago, when my career first started, I also went through the "PIP deathspiral", and it took months... maybe years after my termination to realize I…

Yeeeeeaahhh... maybe.

But it's not exactly the first time GitHub has had issues with this kind of thing.

The impression I get from this whole debacle is that GitHub has a shit attitude, and there's more of them than there is of her, so they did what any company does in a similar situation.

But hey! It's just a "culture issue" right. Except, the culture issue is that the whole effing Silicon Valley culture is pure poison.

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#436
I still dont get why merit-based approaches are being so heavily criticized. Coraline herself seems to have demonstrated a great deal of merit in the work she performed. She has all of my sympathies, but how can one pitch themselves by citing the good work they do, and then go on to state that meritocracy is wrong? I appreciate the specific purpose of Coraline's team Community & Safety, but fail to see why their goals and merit are practically incompatible.

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#437
post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why so much sugarcoating? Feedback was straightforward. I didn't see any aggressive words. Most of out PRs are to the point. Sometimes the big problem I find is that in some companies people are just scared of each other that they fail to communicate. Best places where I worked: people were to the point, they had healthy debates even with strong opinions.

> Why so much sugarcoating? Because empathy is important to communicating effectively. You're looking at the words, but you're not looking at phrasing and tone, which are just as important. Try this exercise: read the sentence out loud to yourself. Taking a line out of Myers-Briggs, does it sound more perceptive or judging, to you, when read aloud? To me it sounds judging, as if Coraline already has pre-conceived not…

>> Why so much sugarcoating?

> Because empathy is important to communicating effectively.

I learned the hard way that displaying empathy and applying sugarcoating are two very different things, back when I was conflating the former with the latter and ended up dismissing both in name of the latter (which made me sound like a pretentious prick), then trying to correct course and applying the latter in lieu of making use of the former (which made me sound political and manipulative).

> Try this exercise: read the sentence out loud to yourself.

To me it sounded like someone who is alarmed at a subject that matters to them and haphazardly made an assertive statement.

People generally can't stand assertive discourse as they perceive it as being judgemental, unless you take a chance at discovering them as well as give them a chance do discover you. Sugarcoating doesn't help with that, it's just trying to state the same thing in a roundabout, artificially lightened way, which most of the time ends up feeling heavy, gooey, pretenseful and manipulative, when what matters is the build-up, the foreplay if you will, leading to a common level of understanding. Ultimately this is all about people and openness, not facts and opinions. Being openly and genuinely kind, querying for people's thoughts and listening to them helps a lot in getting a point across, but it leaves you vulnerable to abusive personalities, also sometimes you really have to stand your ground. It's really tough to strike a balance.

I honestly don't know where truth lies in this exact matter but what I'm sure of is that when you have to second-guess your every words then the place is mentally exhausting and toxic in a terribly pernicious way as it makes you feel in constant danger and gradually destroys your self-esteem.

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#438
post #8

I've seen this a few times. People with a naturally terse way of communicating eventually end up offending someone with the power to retaliate.

except that, for a same communication style, people from some genders are given a pass and perceived as "assertive" and people from other genders are perceived as "aggressive"

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#439

The main thing I've taken away from the whole github situation is that, as a tech company, you should just entirely stay away from public involvement in the social justice sphere. That doesn't mean exclusively hiring white men and sending out Kalanick-style emails; it means keeping your work environment as professional and politically neutral as possible unless absolutely necessary. My employer does a good job of thi…

See my comment form yesterday[1], you're absolutely right.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14702902

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#440

> "What is your gender?" The multiple-choice options were "Male", "Female", and "Transgender" I have low expectations for tech companies understanding these kind of issues, but to separate _transgender_ as an option completely misses the point of what "transgender" actually means.

I don't think it would be too bad if they were checkboxes rather than radio buttons.
Post reply on HN