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

Julie Ann Horvath Describes Sexism and Intimidation Behind Her GitHub Exit

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 1001 posts

Re: Julie Ann Horvath Describes Sexism and Intimidation Behind Her GitHub Exit

#491

Post by theorique »

btilly wrote: post #73
zby wrote: post #36

What a mess! But it looks like sexism was not the number one problem.

The coworker who thought she was an opportunity, and the failure to discipline that coworker, definitely is sexism.

Sounds like mismanagement more than sexism.

Suppose I had a male coworker who had beef with me because his girlfriend broke up with him and started dating me. Suppose he started reverting my commits and interfering with my work in other ways. Essentially, the same situation with the sexes changed around. But the response should be exactly the same.

At that point a manager would need to step in and lay down the law - don't bring your personal conflicts in to work. And if you can't stop, then work somewhere else.

Re: Julie Ann Horvath Describes Sexism and Intimidation Behind Her GitHub Exit

#492

Post by 005-18 »

buro9 wrote: post #433
logicchains wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really surprises me that somebody can get away with such destructive behaviour as reverting someone else's commits without reasonable cause. What justification is there for not firing on the spot anybody who puts their own personal vendettas over the good of the project?

I once quit a senior dev role as the tech architect at the company had veto power on all code and blocked my work because I'd spelled the word dialog the US way, rather than the UK way (dialogue). This was not in a public interface, this was in variable names. Ignoring that every word in programming is in US English: color, gray, program. We were deadlocked for weeks, with him refusing to ship working code that fulfi…

Sounds like two stubborn people. Unless you were taking a "stand" to make a point about a larger issue I don't see that you did anything better to fulfill the business goals.

Re: Julie Ann Horvath Describes Sexism and Intimidation Behind Her GitHub Exit

#493

Post by LeicaLatte »

Given her history of leaking company matters and trivia in such a detailed way to a public blog like tech crunch, any company hiring her next is taking a big chance.

The things that seem to have happened in this case happen all the time, everywhere.

Re: Julie Ann Horvath Describes Sexism and Intimidation Behind Her GitHub Exit

#494

Post by waylandsmithers »

gamblor956 wrote: post #65
bitops wrote: post #53

As usual, another HN thread that perfectly exemplifies victim blaming and a collective burying of heads in the sand. There's a few people on here who seem to get it, but most don't. I'm sick of it. Goodbye, Hacker News.

This should be the top comment. As long as sexism persists in the tech industry, it's going to drive women out and keep others away.

And the sad thing is, I fear that other start ups read this story and now associate even more potential risk with hiring a woman.

Re: Julie Ann Horvath Describes Sexism and Intimidation Behind Her GitHub Exit

#495

Post by jessaustin »

eadlam wrote: post #352
yeukhon wrote: post #183

There seems to be several problems. Not entirely sexism. 1. Founder's wife asked Horvath out and gave her a lecture about who is the boss. Probably out of jealousy. 2. Founder's wife physically inanimate Horvath, making her unwelcome and scared. 3. Founder did not stop the wife and protect his wife. 4. Horvath was approached by a male co-worker and according to her her rejection had caused tension between her and tha…

> 2. Founder's wife physically inanimate Horvath, making her unwelcome and scared. If someone inanimated me, I would quite right then and there. Thats some freaky x-men shit.

I'm not sure if that's meant to be "quit" or "quiet", but either works because upon becoming inanimate you're unlikely to do or say anything. b^)

Re: Julie Ann Horvath Describes Sexism and Intimidation Behind Her GitHub Exit

#496

Post by chippy »

wyclif wrote: post #469
mynameisasdf wrote: post #447

I can't believe that no one has spotted that she is exactly the same annoying feminist that forced the company to get rid of a rug because it used the term "meritocracy". http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug#awesm... Tbfh, she sounds like Adria Richards v2.0

I found that episode terribly confused, and I never understood the rationale behind it. Isn't "meritocracy" a value and environment that feminists have told us over and over again is a positive development for women? Don't women want to work in a "meritocracy" precisely because their work will be valued and appreciated not because they are women but because excellence at work knows no sex, colour, or creed?

The reasoning goes like this:

"Meritocracy is all well and good as a theory. It's all about who decides what merit is. If it's a privileged group of people who decide the merit, then it's going to be biased. Thus championing meritocracy in this organisation means upholding a hierarchy which is unfair, biased and oppressive to those outside of the people at the top".

In other words, meritocracy = an aristocracy of white males, where if you do good according to white male values you progress. Therefore meritocracy is not progression based on good work.

In a less gender explanation - removing the rug equated to a statement of a lack of trust in the employers. The employers agreed to it being removed in an attempt to gather back some of that trust.

What the whole issue ignores is that the rug was about the platform - meritocracy - because all people see is code, where the better projects get the more stars. Now there is a valid argument here that popularity doesn't equal merit - but it does not negate the concept of meritocracy.

Anyhow, I'm just the messenger - I think that there are some serious problems with this reasoning. It's horrible to twist something good to something bad.

Re: Julie Ann Horvath Describes Sexism and Intimidation Behind Her GitHub Exit

#497

Post by jessaustin »

r0muald wrote: post #482
dclowd9901 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After reading the article, it became pretty clear to me that whatever manner of "culture" github appears to be permeating internally, she was very far from it. This indicates she was a bad hire from the get-go. Hiring isn't just about talent, it's also about cultural fit, and while it's difficult to know with precision who fits a cultural dynamic, 1) such an issue is bound to arise as a company grows and 2) there had…

Apparently they were as excited to have her onboard as with any other new hire at the time: https://github.com/blog/1082-julie-ann-horvath-is-a-githubbe...

What's the point? Presumably they make similar announcements for many new hires, although I have to wonder if those are illustrated by such pore-stretchingly enormous head photos.

Re: Julie Ann Horvath Describes Sexism and Intimidation Behind Her GitHub Exit

#498

Post by zaqokm »

lsiebert wrote: post #329
nknighthb wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being ridiculous. Emergency reverts are normal and expected when production systems are down. I'm willing to stipulate this person's specific actions were probably hostile and unwarranted, but some sort of blanket "no revert without discussion" rule is just a way to cost your employer customers. Context is important, and we don't have enough of it to be certain of what happened.

There may be legit reasons, but we have no indication that the reasons were legit. We do have someone involved who says they weren't. We should assume she is being truthful and accurate unless there is a reason to doubt her. If github says the reverts were legit, then that's different, but you should go with the best information we have, instead of trying to find an excuse not to believe her based on no evidence.

> We should assume she is being truthful and accurate unless there is a reason to doubt her.

I come from a different school of thought. Firstly she only mentions a few people but the entire company and an entire industry are being brought into question.

Generally I have found what has been echoed by TechCrunch to be lacking in details and specifically from one persons point of view which shows a very self indulged narrative.

My response is not to suggest it did not happen, but given what has been said, how it has been said, and whom it is being said about, I suggest that before we tar people in such a way that more evidence should be presented.

Re: Julie Ann Horvath Describes Sexism and Intimidation Behind Her GitHub Exit

#499

Post by lotsofmangos »

noir_lord wrote: post #373
unreal37 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone were to hula-hoop to music in my office, male or female, I am pretty sure there would be a lot of people looking on. Not sure where the line of "looking on" and "gawking" is in that situation.

If both are straight and male looking on. If both are gay and male looking on. If both are straight and female looking on. If both are straight and male is hoola hooping with female watching looking on. If both are straight and female is hoola hooping with male looking on gawking. Is this not obvious, We are all uncontrollable messes of hormones and the self-control of a 15 year old boy apparently. If I was at work a…

I'd probably ask for a go on the hula-hoop.

Re: Julie Ann Horvath Describes Sexism and Intimidation Behind Her GitHub Exit

#500

Post by greenrd »

rsynnott wrote: post #472
thesz wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She don't need to lie, she can talk about her feelings . Most of the situations in the article are pretty much innocent, but feelings provoked in her aren't. You cannot verify or falsify feelings. They can have different plausible origins. She present one origin, you say she is right. Yes, her side is plausible. The worst thing here is that some of the origins can be offending to some of participants. You chose side…

> Most of the situations in the article are pretty much innocent, but feelings provoked in her aren't. Huh? Pretty much none of them are remotely innocent. They range from unprofessional to gross misconduct to potentially illegal.

Reverting someone's commits "silently" (inasmuch as you can do anything silently in git!) is any of those? That's interesting, because my commits were once "silently" reverted at a previous workplace and then when I queried it, it was explained that I was the one in the wrong.

Because I had made a commit without discussing it first and without understanding what I was doing.

(I would have discussed it first, but the developer concerned was on holiday at the time.)

What I'm saying is, there's a possibility that it wasn't unprofessional.

Some might argue what was unprofessional at both employers (GitHub and my previous one) was not having an iron policy that all commits must be code reviewed by another person. But that's a policy issue.

Post reply on HN