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

461–470 of 514 posts

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#461

Post by malandrew »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #430
malandrew wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you show me a work environment that is not hostile to anyone? Every work environment has hostilities. The only way they each differ is in who is the recipient of the hostilities, the degree of hostility present and if that hostility is illegal or not. In that sense, the statement "We don't have a provably illegal hostile work environment" means exactly nothing, making Github no different than all the other workpl…

> Can you show me a work environment that is not hostile to anyone? That strikes me like saying that all sex is rape, it's just a matter of how violent or unwilling.

Thank you for contribution. I'm trying to figure out which of the common relevance fallacies it falls under if anyone can help? Here are the possible options as I see it.

* reductio ad absurdam

* red herring

* strawman

* non sequiter

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#462

Post by malandrew »

Nelson69 wrote: post #264
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.

Surely other women work there. Time will tell here, won't it? The story is dramatically more powerful if other women come forward. I don't know that it lessens things if others do not but it does create some interesting questions to those brave enough to ask them.

If this is a true systemic problem, the next person better be sure to actually collect evidence/proof of what happened and then clearly present facts instead of resorting to histrionics.

If this whole thing were as bad as JAH has made it out to be, I would have imagined we would have already seen damning emails and other written correspondence backing up here allegations. As a company that doesn't most of its work asynchronously through written prose, it's not like github doesn't have oodles and oodles of written correspondence that would support her position better. There's email, pull requests, chat, etc. Given the duration of employment, she must have plenty of things to point at. If she didn't she should have made sure that some of the offending interactions were captured in written form at least once.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#463

Post by bm1362 »

rurounijones wrote: post #448
Allan_Smithee wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy who wrote Github is responsible for some of the worst coding atrocities in a major piece of F/OSS. (Evidence: the Linguist debacle.) JS for Cats is, in comparison to Linguist, a work of towering intellect.

More info? I have never heard of anything bad about Linguist (And I don't know that much about it.). Googling didnt bring up anything obvious,

I think it's the project that does syntax highlighting for the code browser in Github?

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#464

Post by malandrew »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #99
carlosdp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the allegation was she had access to internal chat, not customer data.

Access to internal chat may have given her access to much of GitHub through HuBot. https://hubot.github.com/

Access to emails is one thing. Access to the internal public banter and coordination of work hardly strikes me as worrying based on all the discussions I've seen at my current place of work and past places of work. Any information sensitive enough to keep from your significant other is probably too sensitive for a shared internal conversation system available to all employees. Yeah, there's stuff that you wouldn't want your competitors to know, but for most everyone else with no skin in the business/industry is fairly irrelevant information.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#465

Post by mtrimpe »

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…

Ah yes; you know exactly how you would react if everything you've worked for for several years vanishes into thin air just because your CEO's wife has boundary issues and your company doesn't know how to deal with shit like that.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#466

Post by gamed »

malandrew wrote: post #461
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you show me a work environment that is not hostile to anyone? That strikes me like saying that all sex is rape, it's just a matter of how violent or unwilling.

Thank you for contribution. I'm trying to figure out which of the common relevance fallacies it falls under if anyone can help? Here are the possible options as I see it. * reductio ad absurdam * red herring * strawman * non sequiter

Reductio ad absurdum is actually a completely legitimate method of argument. There is nothing fallacious about it whatsoever.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#467

Post by rurounijones »

bm1362 wrote: post #463
rurounijones wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More info? I have never heard of anything bad about Linguist (And I don't know that much about it.). Googling didnt bring up anything obvious,

I think it's the project that does syntax highlighting for the code browser in Github?

It is the software the identifies % of language used in a repository and highlighting etc. https://github.com/github/linguist

I just haven't heard anything bad about it so am curious why OP calls it a "debacle"

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#468

Post by nailer »

msie wrote: post #376
nailer wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

Hmmm, I thought it was a caller that asked that question, not the DJ.

Both correct: DJ speaks on behalf of caller who suggested it.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#469

Post by nailer »

sneak wrote: post #381
nailer wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/458342995469688833 https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/458347143086870528 https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/458347574672388096

That's not actually a response to my post, which is about polling female employees and not men.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#470

Post by nailer »

vulf wrote: post #382
nailer wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Both Zed and JAH are difficult personalities, but a professional structure should be in place to handle matters which can distract people from work. GitHub should have implemented a blocking mechanism to stop people inviting Zed to 'dick' projects, and if the rumour mongering story is true, HR should have stepped in and disciplined Horvath.

> GitHub should have implemented a blocking mechanism to stop people inviting Zed to 'dick' projects They did: https://github.com/blog/862-block-the-bullies They never admitted to it being a response to the incident with Zed, but the timing was too convenient. That blog post was dated 05/31/2011. Zed's commits to the repo in question happened on 05/28/2011: https://github.com/moron5/dongml/commit/f4b8df910e4048202768…

Ah. I think I read about it before they'd done that. Thanks for the update.
Post reply on HN