
Update on Julie Horvath's Departure - bentlegen
https://github.com/blog/1800-update-on-julie-horvath-s-departure
======
sequoia
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 to reliably prove or disprove anything at
this point; Github issued a nonspecific semi-apology (to wit: "It’s certain
that there were things we could have done differently" well, yeah this is
usually the case) with some promising indications that they are taking the
issue seriously & looking into it.

Now we wait. Stop saying github is admitting to every point of Horvath's
assertions! Stop saying Horvath is a liar! You don't know these things! Take
deep breaths, listen for a bit, and wait for more information to come out.

~~~
aceperry
"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 is just under the
surface of our thoughts, ready to explode when an appropriate trigger occurs.

I laughed when I read the quote above and thought it was a good comment.

~~~
pron
It is sad that some people dispute the existence of sexism in tech, but that
does not make it controversial in the sense that it is contentious, because it
isn't. The facts are simple: 1) technology is a big source of power in our
society, and 2) women are underrepresented in tech. Whenever a well defined
group of people is absent from (or underrepresented in) a source of power,
discrimination is taking place, period. Sexism, like racism, is a loaded word,
and people often believe that malice is required for it to exist, but that is
not the case. Whether sexism begins in kindergarten or in mens-club startups
is, at this point, secondary. It is there and we _must_ address it.

In the case of GitHub specifically, the issue is even clearer. This is a
company that for years had a blog with little else than their drinking
escapades. Perhaps that's changed, but the burden of proof is on them.

The only thing that is up for dispute is whether this _particular_ case is an
example of sexism in tech or not. We can't be 100% sure, but at this time it's
safer to assume that the weaker party is right, if only because the stronger
party can handle a quick-to-judge public much more easily than the weaker
party. I'm not saying it's boycott time, but it's best to at least open the
discussion with that assumption in mind. Again, the burden of proof is on
GitHub.

~~~
kilburn
> Again, the burden of proof is on GitHub

I can see how "to align with the weaker party" can be a sensible goal for a
society. However, in this case it directly conflicts with the presumption of
innocence principle, which is an even higher goal for a just society.

So no, the burden of proof lies in whoever is making the accusations, whatever
the (un)balanced of power between parties is.

What we should do is (1) not judge any party until there are enough _facts_ on
the table (of which we don't have many right now); (2) strive for an impartial
account of the events; (3) judge only on and after _evidence_ has been
collected. If you want to support a cause, pushing for people to follow this
recipe would work much better than pushing for "the weaker party is right
until the stronger party proves themselves".

~~~
pron
I am not in favor of _judging_ them now, only _assuming_ they're in the wrong
for the purpose of discussion; if some people happen to jump to conclusions,
I'm sure GitHub can take it more than Horvath can.

Because sexism in tech is a fact, this occasion is an opportunity to discuss
it. Debating whether Horvath is right or wrong is not only futile, but is also
potentially harmful to her, and that harm is far greater than GitHub's.
Presumption of innocence is only a principle in legal disputes, and this,
currently, isn't one, nor are we the jury. There will be no great injustice
done if the assumption turns out to be false, but there is a lot of harm being
inflicted on Horvath right now by people equating her position with that of a
rich company and suspending any form of judgment. This does not only harm her
personally, but the entire industry by implying that sexism in tech is
disputable and pending "further data", which it isn't.

Given that sexism in tech is real and serious, that GitHub has a bit of a
spotty background on that issue, and that GitHub does not deny any of the
allegations, this is a perfectly good time to assume something bad has
happened and discuss measures to correct the situation in the industry. If it
turns out GitHub has fallen victim to the very real injustice of sexism in
tech, I won't shed a tear for them, but will be excited to see them face the
challenge and lead the way forward.

~~~
zevyoura
Why do we have to make an assumption either way? Damage to Github's reputation
may not be a "great injustice," but it's not exactly consequence-free. It
seems to me that withholding judgment is a far better course of action.

------
skywhopper
It's good to see this statement out of Github. The general tone and
specifically the mention of the founder's wife in this post gives a huge
amount of credence to Julie's claims. I hope Github follows through on this
with as much sincerity and determination as this post implies.

~~~
joshbert
I agree that the statement is good. I only wish they'd addressed the concerns
that were raised regarding them having access to/messing with private repos.

~~~
chris11
I didn't quite read the statement as saying the founder's wife had access to
private repos. I just read it as saying that the founder's wife claimed to
have access to private company communication, specifically chat logs only
intended for github employees. But a statement clearing the concerns up would
be nice.

~~~
watson
You're right - the TechCrunch article didn't mention access to private repos -
only private employee chatrooms. But the question was raised here on HN,
asking if she did have access to private employee chatrooms what else might
she or others have access to? If the security is lax in one area, one might
assume it's lax in others as well. But it's just speculation - but it has
merit non the less

[edit: spelling]

~~~
jen_h
There's no way to know unless someone comes out and says it explicitly, but
it's not out of the realm of possibility that the aforementioned "spies"
emailed specific chat logs to her. In a toxic environment, that kind of stuff
gets passed around willy-nilly. That's the first conclusion I jumped to after
reading the TechCrunch article, anyway.

------
minimaxir
This is the best possible response GitHub could have done given the
circumstances.

~~~
_delirium
That was also my first reaction. I don't know enough about crisis-management-
style PR to second-guess their response. I often have the _suspicion_ that
founders are not taking the best course of action, but this response seems to
avoid the obvious pitfalls.

~~~
Bahamut
This was also my first reaction as well - the real question is how they
followup this response, but this is the only correct move at this juncture.

~~~
phreanix
I think the follow up will be more critical, especially the public
explanation. That will have the potential to either strengthen GH's
credibility or destroy it.

~~~
bosch
Why should they give a public explanation for something that should've stayed
internal in the first place? This should've stayed between the OP, GitHub and
GH's HR team.

------
PakG1
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-making prowess. And yet, here we see
instances of him possibly:

1\. Not being able to identify boundaries between his personal life and his
work life, and allowing factors from his personal life to influence his work
life, possibly very negatively (magnified by his position at the company).

2\. 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.

3\. Having perhaps made a poor marriage decision. I would not be surprised if
everyone downvotes me for this speculation, and am sorry if this ruffles
features. But if this episode is true, there are very few ways that this co-
founder's marriage comes out looking good. Either he's absolutely insensitive
to the needs of his company or he's completely whipped by a woman who cares
more about herself than him. 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.

In the end, I am reminded again that people are messy, and no matter how
intelligent they appear to be, they can still have the potential to act
stupidly.

~~~
tomp
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.

~~~
PakG1
> Wow, you make it sound so easy.

I think you misread me. I believe I made it pretty clear that I think that
people from all walks of life do not find it easy to make good decisions. I
don't believe it is so easy. I talk as one who has made many poor decisions
myself.

> How is that relevant, and what exactly does that even mean?

I really don't want to get into this, mainly because we don't have enough
information. But the gist is what I've stated, that he may have entered into a
marriage with a selfish and megalomaniac woman who cares more about herself
than him. Again, we don't have enough information to confirm, but the
questions are asked because there are allegations of such behaviour.

And for the record, I have seen plenty of good, high-quality marriages where
doing what married people should do does not become public incidents (i.e.
they are able to work out their issues in the way you describe, but in private
so that they don't become public spectacles).

------
rodgerd
It's good to see a straight-up apology, not a mealy-mouthed "I'm sorry if our
engineer's sexual harrassment offended you" type response.

Of course, it would have been better if Julie had felt like she could have
taken this up while she still worked there and got something done at the time.

~~~
hueving
Re-read it. He was careful not to actually apologize for anything in
particular. It's worth noting that they have not admitted to any 'sexism' or
whatever other accusations are floating around.

------
duncan_bayne
Awesome response from GitHub. Professional response, apologises and thanks the
complainant rather than being defensive ... I think their new HR hire in
January is already paying dividends ;)

~~~
hueving
They didn't actually apologize for anything in specific. This is very
carefully crafted and is being very defensive by not admitting to anything.
The only real meat is clarifying that the wife had no hiring/firing power.

~~~
socceroos
Explain to me why you would admit to anything if you haven't got to the bottom
of it yourself? As they explained, they're investigating the issue currently.

So...doesn't their response then make sense?

------
almightygod
This whole incident is sad. It's incredibly sad for Julie, for everyone at
GitHub, for the founders, and for the alleged "crazy" founder wife who was
banned from a company she probably sacrificed a lot for

~~~
pekk
I'm surprised nobody sees sexism in the way that the wife has been
stigmatized.

~~~
joshyeager
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.

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

~~~
brazzy
Because sexism.

------
macspoofing
Usually there are two sides of the story, but the fact that a non-employee
(wife of co-founder) exercised so much power and meddled in internal office
politics in the way that she did, it was hard to see how GitHub could even
claim a reasonable stance. They screwed this up big time. This is a good
response.

~~~
atomaka
Not usually...ALWAYS. There is another side here. Github has just realized
they have nothing to gain by defending.

~~~
stfp
Off topic, but there is not always "two sides". There is a tendency to try to
frame and reduce everything to binary questions... but the world is just not
binary.

~~~
jamesaguilar
To put it another way, there may be two sides (or N sides), but some sides'
perspective are often more worthy than others. Not to Godwin the thread, but,
yeah. Both sides' perspectives are not always equally valid. (I dutifully
acknowledge that the offenses are not the same magnitude, and all the caveats
that go with referencing The Big G.)

~~~
SolarNet
Like the nature of earth:

* General scientific opinion (it's generally roundish).

* Religious doctrine (it's flat, centre of universe, on the back of a turtle).

* And then this person: [http://www.timecube.com/](http://www.timecube.com/)

Point is, only one of these sides is reasonable.

------
bdcravens
_The founder’s wife discussed in the media reports has never had hiring or
firing power at GitHub and will no longer be permitted in the office._

The fact that she was married to someone who did have hiring or firing power
and WAS permitted in the office means she DID have (defacto) hiring or firing
power.

I wonder what the ramifications are, legal-wise? Obviously the founder could
be sued, especially if he was allowing someone who wasn't an employee to
harass. I suspect A16Z will waste no time putting distance between themselves
and the (allegedly) guilty founder. In the end, this wife's jealousy could end
up costing her family 10s or 100s of millions of dollars.

~~~
balloot
By your logic, hiring managers should not be allowed to be married, lest they
give a non-employee "defacto" hiring power.

Before we string up the cofounder's wife, let's actually let her and/or the
cofounder defend themselves, OK? It's entirely possible Horvath is completely
embellishing things and the cofounder's wife didn't do anything terribly out
of line.

~~~
hhandoko
That's quite the straw man.

The key here is that the founder's wife has a regular presence in the office.
Plus, a founder is in a vastly higher position of authority than an employee
(be it a manager, or else).

So it's not too far to imagine that she could exert some influence towards her
husband's decision at work, e.g. hiring and firing of someone.

~~~
balloot
Yes, she could exert influence. Just like every other SO of every other hiring
manager in the world. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I hire people, and I talk to my wife all the time about work matters. And if,
knowing everything she knows about my team, she told me that I should be
looking at cutting someone loose, I would take that advice very seriously.
Every good executive has trusted advisors, and for people in serious
relationships the partner is very commonly one of those advisors.

The only problem here is the wife's alleged direct meddling with work matters,
not that she had a strong influence on her husband's work decisions. For
founders, life is totally enmeshed with work and it would actually be weird if
his wife DIDN'T have strong opinions on the company he built while she
supported him at home.

------
jw2013
"the relevant founder has been put on leave... The founder’s wife... will no
longer be permitted in the office."

Almost exactly what I expected. As the startup grows larger (200+ employees
now for Github?) it's not uncommon to have some cultural setback. +1 for
Github trying to fix it asap, but still Chris Wanstrath did not mention how
are they exactly going to fix the culture. Putting founder on leave is by no
means panacea. The behavior on that one founder is very likely not the cause
for the wrong culture, but just the side effect. So more specific plans INSIDE
the company, please? (well, actually I think fixing the culture can't be done
by any plan, but it must be done by example of founders/high-level
executives.)

~~~
carlosdp
It's been like a day (over a weekend), probably not enough time to put
together such a plan...

------
duked
I wasn't aware of the whole story. Here is the link to better understand the
context: [http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-
describes...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes-
sexism-and-intimidation-behind-her-github-exit/)

~~~
sp332
And the discussion, which is still on the front page
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7408055](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7408055)

------
linuxhansl
I wish we could stop this.

Women in software is an important topic. This specific issue on the other hand
is just a he-said-she-said soap opera.

Nobody but the folks directly involved here know what really happened.
_Everything_ else is useless.

~~~
brazzy
The problem is that it's _always_ he-said-she-said, _especially_ in the worst
cases.

~~~
linuxhansl
That is very true.

I would maintain, though, that besides the involved parties nobody can
possibly know what really happened, and hence everything is just idle
speculation.

------
avoutthere
Ms. Horvath's act of taking this directly to the press was obviously intended
to inflict the maximum possible harm on Github and is, in itself,
unprofessional and harms her credibility. The right way for her to have
handled this would have been to document _everything_ , and then resign and
sue them without fanfare. Nobody wins when dirty laundry is aired.

~~~
jen_h
Most women (and men--Julie's story rang true to me--and also reminded me of
persecution some guys I've worked with have endured) protest and, when nothing
changes, quit to preserve their health and sanity. They don't sue. They don't
get fanfare for it. They quietly resign and move to other pastures. And
nothing changes for their coworkers (and other women and men in the industry)
who are also harassed.

Resigning and talking about it is actually pretty courageous. She doesn't win,
she gets a stigma. Her company doesn't win, it gets a stigma. But the
spectators with their mouths agog realize that this kind of
mismanagement/harassment is not only happening under noses, but also being
noticed externally (it's endemic; while women and minorities likely deal with
it a lot more, it's not just gender-based, it often happens to the lawful-good
no matter what gender or race in small tech companies) and, for a brief time,
these companies pull themselves together and become better places to work, if
only because it's expensive and time-consuming and morale-killing to fuck this
stuff up.

------
Exenith
I try to avoid these topics, but it's almost sad to see how easily you've all
rushed to her side. It seems the magic word of the 2010s is "sexism": utter
that word, and people will defend you no matter how little evidence there is,
no matter how full of shit you are -- assuming, of course, you are a female.

Is what she described accurate? Maybe so, maybe not. No one fucking knows, and
that is the point. Stop being assholes about it until someone, if anyone, has
been proven to have done wrong. It's not uncommon for someone to feel
sourgrapes about a situation and use "sexism" as a way to manipulate it in
their favor. Most of you act like that isn't even a fucking possibility.

------
krick
The sad thing is that however the real story may have nothing to do with
sexism, but as it's presented as "sexism story" and "protecting other women",
the people who will probably suffer the most after that story are that very
women. It would be pretty natural for many HRs to remember that story as
"possible hazard" and _ceteris paribus_ reject the female candidate.

------
gdilla
That non-employee spouses are allowed on company property to the extent that
the CEO has to acknowledge it (and put an end to it) smacks of an
unprofessional environment. Ugh.

~~~
hackinthebochs
This is an extremely odd sentiment. Now, if said spouse is causing issues that
interfere with work then by all means ban this person. But as a blanket rule
that seems absurd.

~~~
prawn
I think "causing issues" was implied by "to the extent that the CEO has to
acknowledge it".

------
peterjancelis
They are lucky it's not the CEO-founder. Easier to put a non-CEO on leave than
a CEO I imagine.

~~~
slm_HN
Sounds like you're so desperate to out the guy that you have to make a weird,
nonsensical post.

If you really want to out him that badly just man up an post his name rather
than trying to weasel around with "Easier to put a president on leave than a
CEO".

~~~
peterjancelis
Here, I edited my post so I don't hurt your peculiar sensitivities.

I wasn't outing anyone, the founder who shall not be named is the only married
one as plenty of people pointed out from the start.

Also, for context to the original comment, the founder we are discussing here
used to be CEO but switched roles a while back.

~~~
vulf
PJ Hyett has been married for many years:
[https://twitter.com/pjhyett/status/89064336454201346](https://twitter.com/pjhyett/status/89064336454201346)

~~~
peterjancelis
I stand corrected.

------
peterwwillis
Please - I would like to ask all the commenters to respect the privacy and
feelings of all the people affected, their loved ones, and friends. The only
productive or good thing you can do is express sympathy for the victims and
hope they reach an amicable resolution.

Most of you probably have no idea how some thoughtless comments on a forum can
cause grief, pain and fear to intensify. Making hurtful comments, making
assumptions, and taking sides does nothing to help anyone involved. It can
only hurt someone, and is completely unnecessary (other than for sating a
debased wish to feed on the suffering of others). Whatever happens does not
concern you and will not be affected by you in any positive way.

So, pretty please, for the sake of all the people who are directly and
indirectly affected by this story, STOP. SPECULATING.

------
stevenelliottjr
Pretty ridiculous, I'm sure she'll land on her feet but these startup cultures
are a disaster. Hula hoops? No clear management of any kind? I'm all for
freedom of expression and all that but try and act like an adult for once in
your life and put the hula hoops down.

~~~
dkersten
What is wrong with hula hoops?

I have (adult) friends who dance for fun, play with hula hoops, play with poi
balls and lots of other things. There is nothing wrong with these things.

 _No clear management of any kind_ is a big problem, but the rest of what you
say is, as you put it, _pretty ridiculous_.

~~~
Pacabel
Nobody has suggested there's anything wrong with playing with hula hoops, even
when it's adults doing it. It just doesn't seem like something that should be
done at work, or at work-related events.

------
chromejs10
It's really sad for this to have happened, but respect to Chris Wanstrath for
his classy and sincere apology.

------
n1ghtmare_
Honestly If all of this is true, then obviously what happened is wrong, but I
don't really see the sexism in this whole thing. Is it the houla-hoops thingy
? Because I gotta tell you if 2 dudes start doing houla-hoops where I work
everybody will stop and watch ... Just because it's ... I dunno weird ? funny
? unusual ? Am I missing something ?

~~~
ojii
I also didn't see the connection at first, but as I understand it the sexism
claim comes from the implication that her experiences are at least partially
due to her gender. as in, the situations were handled the way they were
because she's a woman. as I read her side, the hoola hooping was more so to
show an example of the allegedly sexist culture at GitHub.

------
ketralnis
I don't see how this is any of our business. Is HN a gossip rag? Because
otherwise this is just two indirect blobs of hearsay directed at each other.

~~~
antihero
Because it involves an important issue within our industry, and how a major
company is dealing with it.

------
cpks
This is a textbook response to a harassment issue. It is extremely
professional. You put the accused on paid leave. You do not fire them. If the
accuser is correct, this prevents further damage. If the accuser is incorrect,
this prevents permanent damage to the accused.

You contact a full internal investigation, and you do not issue any statements
biased either way until you have full information from that investigation. At
the end of the investigation, you either bring back the accused employees if
they appear innocent, or lay them off if they appear guilty.

This is absolutely the right thing to do. I understand the Internet would like
companies to go in with pitchforks before investigating. That is wrong. In the
majority of discrimination cases, the accuser is wrong (for example, the
accused is an equal-opportunity-asshole, but the accuser feels targeted). When
the accuser is right, you want to know the level and details before acting in
any irreversible way (and a public statement, aside from potentially being
libel, is irreversible).

The Internet's attention span is the Internet's problem -- not github's.

------
learningram
I think there is whole chunk of story missing.. Some context/information is
missing from her allegations. The wife's behavior doesn't make sense.

Too many red flags in Julie's version. But I will wait for the complete story.

------
allochthon
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.

~~~
guiambros
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 seemed fair and balanced, and they acted fast by removing
the folks involved. Too bad it got to this point, but it's a good sign.

~~~
ciupicri
> GitHub is not a scrappy startup anymore; it's a 1 billion dollar company

Yeah, let's kill all the fun.

> You do not allow strangers to walk around the office

Except that she wasn't a stranger, she was the wife of a founder. Most old
employees probably know her.

------
wcummings
If what she said is half true, the engineer in question should absolutely be
fired. I would fire him.

~~~
hueving
It's a good thing you aren't a manager. Which half is it that's good enough
for termination? Reverting a commit, or what?

~~~
wcummings
A coworker showing up uninvited to her house and making an awkward and
uninvited advance, or systematically reverting commits as vengeance.

I made a vague statement, but I think "reverting a commit" is definitely
minimizing what she claims happened

~~~
watwut
Seriously? You would fire employee for making an awkward and advance? I can
see firing person for reverting commits as vengeance. I can see firing person
for harassing someone or if he was threatening.

I can not see it reasonable to fire employee for asking another one on date
once, even if it was awkward and unexpected.

Maybe I'm weird, but I do not see it employers business to police
relationships of their adult employees, as long as they do not cross the line
described above.

~~~
wcummings
She clearly felt he was threatened, whatever that is worth.

------
sergiotapia
Him mentioning the cofounder's wife immediately gives credibility to Julie's
claims! I hope she get's paid! The workplace should be professional, not a
schoolyard.

~~~
vacri
I don't recall anyone having a spouse when I was playing in schoolyards.

------
meistro
This is leadership. Executive leadership at other tech companies should take
note.

~~~
tatalegma
To respond only after the issue was brought public? No, that is no leadership.
It's the best possible response he could give under the present circumstances,
but on the flipside, he had no choice but to make this statement. I wouldn't
be surprised if it was crafted for him by a PR person or firm.

~~~
hiddentao
I'm guessing that at the time (whilst the issue was still internal) they
didn't think what was happening was a big enough deal. As a result they're now
having to perform damage control.

------
mcv
This is a great apology, and goes a long way to restore my shattered faith in
github.

No denying or spinning what happened, no victim blaming; just "we fucked up,
we're going to do everything we can to fix it, and Julie is great". That's all
I expect. Own up, fix the problem, and protect the victim.

------
curiousgeorgio
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 and issues

It's unclear what exactly this means, and in most cases, bringing up someone's
character in PRs is certainly inappropriate. Does it happen? Yes, it happens
all the time, regardless of gender. A PR comment like "it's a bit naive to
assume these conditions will be met in this instruction - please fix" is
technically bringing up someone's character inappropriately. She never claimed
(at least as quoted by TC) that sexist or intimidating things were brought up
in PRs/issues - just that "character started being discussed".

> She calls her colleagues’ response to her own work and the work of other
> female GitHub employees a “serious problem.”

Again, pretty unclear. The response to her work MAY have had nothing to do
with her gender or any kind of personal/social conflict, but rather based
solely on performance. If such was the case, then I'd say colleagues tend to
"respond" to other people's work all day long. I honestly can't say the
"response" in this case was completely benign, but again, the article and
direct quotes certainly don't seem to point at anything specific.

> she struggled to feel welcome.

This is a common feeling in pretty much any workplace or environment,
regardless of who you are.

> she did her best to distance herself from the founder’s wife, as well as the
> founder, for fear of being caught up in an unhealthy situation.

This is mentioned before anything else regarding the founder or the founder's
wife. It sounds like (at least the way it's presented in the article) some
kind of animosity was felt even before any real interaction between the
parties. That could be based on anything (including possibly Horvath's own
prejudgement). The truth is we don't know because we aren't given any more
details.

> almost immediately the conversation that I thought was supposed to be causal
> turned into something very inappropriate. She began telling me about how she
> informs her husband’s decision-making at GitHub, how I better not leave
> GitHub and write something bad about them, and how she had been told by her
> husband that she should intervene with my relationship to be sure I was
> ‘made very happy’ so that I wouldn’t quit and say something nasty about her
> husband’s company because ‘he had worked so hard.’... the wife went on to
> claim that she was responsible for hires at GitHub, and asked Horvath to
> explain to her what she was working on.

Just for sake of argument, here's a possible conversation that could be
twisted into fitting the above description:

"Glad you could join us for drinks! My husband works hard to create an amazing
workplace at GitHub, and even though I'm not a part of the company myself, I
enjoy meeting the employees and want to help people feel welcome the best way
I can. My husband told me you're fairly new... what is it you do? That's
great. I just want to make sure you're very happy at GitHub. In some way, I
feel responsible for helping make sure the company treats everyone well. If
there's anything that could be better, I might be able to put in a word with
him. The last thing they'd want is for you to have a bad experience and leave
the company."

That's just an example of something I wouldn't be surprised to hear from a
founder's spouse in a startup environment.

> The wife also claimed to employ “spies” inside of GitHub, and claimed to be
> able to, again according to Horvath, read GitHub employees’ private chat-
> room logs, which only employees are supposed to have access to

I agree this is definitely crossing a line, but of course the wife only
"claimed" to have this access. That doesn't mean she does, and I could easily
see it being said in a low voice (trying to win over someone's "exclusive" or
"secret" friendly confidence) along the lines of:

"I'm not officially with GitHub, but I have ears. I try to keep close tabs on
what employees are saying about the company in the chat rooms and company
chit-chat."

The next few events are pretty vague. It includes rumors, a random profession
of love (and rejection) outside the workplace (if she had a problem with
trespassing, she should have called the cops; the male engineer's reaction at
work - if true - should have been corrected by HR, but it sounds like it was
never brought up to HR by Horvath as it should have been), Horvath "feeling
threatened", and "the founder accus[ing] her of threatening his wife",
followed by the wife "sitting close to Horvath". Lots of generalities.

Finally it bubbles to the point of Horvath claiming "The next thing I knew the
wife was in my face at my work station verbally attacking me"

From my own experience, perfectly civil conversations can often be turned into
"verbal attacks" later if it helps a person's case. I'm not saying that's what
happened here, but the details are _just so vague_. What was the conversation
about?

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?

I certainly won't say that Horvath is making this stuff up, and it does sound
like some inappropriate actions _did_ occur and she should be upset. But I
_will_ say that based on the "evidence" presented in the TC article, GitHub is
not guilty of all the claims "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

~~~
SolarNet
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 enough self control to ignore women
moving their bodies around. You are basically using the same logic as
countries that require burqas in public. This has already been covered by
feminist movements in this country. It is seriously a sign of how backwards
the tech industry is in regards to social equality that this sort of basic
stuff is missing from general knowledge.

~~~
sockgrant
> In a casual work environment people often do light exercise

Could you elaborate on this? In the work environments I've been in, people go
to the gym or outside to work out. I've never been in a work environment where
it's acceptable to do your exercising in the office space. What are you
talking about -- yoga, bicep curls, jogging, jumping jacks? I've worked at
extremely liberal companies but that kind of stuff doesn't happen..

> and they need to feel comfortable to do that without being turned into sex
> objects

I don't think it's a person's right to hula hoop in an office and then be
upset when they attract the attention of the rest of the office, regardless of
sex on both sides. It's an unusual thing to do, so it will draw eyes.

~~~
balls187
Definitely.

I think Julie should have spoken to both groups, telling the guys it's not
cool to gawk at women, and tell the women if they want to hula hoop, do it
some place more private.

~~~
duncan_bayne
> and tell the women if they want to hula hoop, do it some place more private.

Indeed. And just in case men _still_ gawked at them, she could have brought
some free niqab to work for them to wear.

[http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2013-09-18.png](http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2013-09-18.png)

~~~
balls187
Eh, I think you missed my point.

The point of talking to the women isn't to help the men exercise better
restraint (which extrapolated to an extreme would require a niqab).

It's that if the women are doing something in the office, out in the open that
people stopping to watch would make other people feel uncomfortable, then
perhaps it shouldn't be done out in plain view of everyone.

Like, if you are trying to have a private conversation with your Dr on the
phone about your recent herpes outbreak, don't talk in the lunchroom and get
pissed that I listened in.

We can come up with counter examples, and/or take things to the extreme,
however my point is that exercising some restraint and a little
professionalism would make situations like this non existent.

~~~
duncan_bayne
No, I got your point quite clearly. If hula hooping women make you
uncomfortable, that's unfortunate, but also totally your problem. Ditto
breastfeeding and suchlike.

~~~
balls187
_Clearly_ you did not.

> If hula hooping women make you uncomfortable

It wasn't women hula hooping made someone feel uncomfortable.

It was men "gawking" at the women hula hooping, that made Julie Horvath feel
uncomfortable.

I hope you understand the difference.

> If hula hooping women make you uncomfortable, that's unfortunate, but also
> totally your problem. Ditto breastfeeding and suchlike.

Tangentially related--another key point you're missing, this is an office.

No one should have to feel uncomfortable at the workplace, because the office
is for people to work and be productive, not hula hoop.

Things like hula hooping (I'm guessing), yoga, tai chi, Zumba, etc, are there
to improve worker productivity. If these programs run counter to that and
actually hinder productivity by making some employees feel uncomfortable, then
those programs may not be the right fit for the workplace.

~~~
duncan_bayne
> No one should have to feel uncomfortable at the workplace

I think you're wrong about that.

What about religious fundamentalists uncomfortable with gay people?

What about conservatives uncomfortable with breastfeeding?

What about chauvinists uncomfortable with women in leadership positions?

There is no right to 'not feel uncomfortable'. There is no right to 'not to
feel offended'.

What you have to do is choose _who_ you are going to offend.

------
jordanb
In github's defense, that rug really tied the room together.

------
balls187
Don't know what to make of this.

The founder getting his wife involved made a serious mistake. Agreed with most
everyone else here, the CEO made the right call.

I'm now trying to understand though, what precipitated this whole mess. Julie
talks about github as a "boys-club" culture and that her character was under
attack in pull requests and issues, but doesn't give any more details.

Julie talks about passive aggressive behavior from a coworker, but this was
while her ordeal with one of the founders was going on.

So what triggered this collapse?

------
happywolf
Here is an article that I found on TechCrunch. Posting the link here just for
sharing. No, I am still trying to make out what is happening, so I hold no
opinion for now.

[http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-
describes...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes-
sexism-and-intimidation-behind-her-github-exit/)

------
avenger123
I am just reading about all this now.

First of all, the main theme that resonates with me is that no company is
immune to these things no matter how much "special" or "different" they are.

At this point, I don't completely accept everything Horvath is saying nor do I
believe what she is saying is all lies. The truth as is always the case is
never black and white. What I do accept is that there is definitely serious
issues that need to be taken a look at that have been brought up.

Github did not need to respond and I believe they responded quite well. There
response cannot be point by point rebuttal or a statement of denial.

It's a measured response stating that they are taking action to look into the
issues. Putting a founder on leave is a major decision and sends the message
to Github's employees and the rest of the community that they are taking this
seriously. My takeaway from the response was recognition that Horvath's
assertions are with weight and they will not shy away from investigation.

There is no doubt that Horvath's assertions have made Github deal with this.
Having a founder be involved would likely have swept all of this under the
rug.

I commend Horath's for speaking out. I am certain it wasn't an easy decision
and very painful.

I also commend Github for having the CEO write this response instead of hiding
behind a shield of legalese.

I do believe something will come out from this for the positive. There are too
many great people within Github that do not need to be there that will now
have an opportunity to take a reality check and assess for themselves
Horvath's claims and drive for change.

The founder may be the most in the hot seat. Github may use this as the "last
straw" of many straws that may have been already bulging at the camel's back
to exit the founder.

------
patomolina
The attitude adopted by the HR department on this matter reminded me of this:
[http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-11-26/](http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-11-26/)

It's good to see that things are changing in GH.

------
leothekim
Now, what does "put on leave" mean? Is that "suspended with pay"? "Stay low
until the dust settles"? Or, "terminated after further review"?

~~~
cpayne
It means just that!

Github have a very fine line to walk. They don't have traditional shareholders
to make happy. At the end of the day, all they have is their brand to protect.

Ask Microsoft how important their brand is after releasing Windows ME. Or
Blackberry just after the iPhone came out.

Clearly _something_ has happened, but they have to not only find out what
happened, but to also be transparent and show that they are trying to find out
what happened.

I think its the best response you can expect given the circumstances.

~~~
greenyoda
_" At the end of the day, all they have is their brand to protect."_

They also need to protect their company from a potential lawsuit.

~~~
vpeters25
Bingo!, the lawsuit is coming regardless, Horvath made sure to leave enough of
a paper trail for it.

I think this whole situation looks like a misunderstanding snowballing into a
tsunami. Founder's wife takes her for drinks, gets drunk, talks of her ass and
says inappropriate stuff. I would just chalk it to drunkenness and forget the
whole episode. It would've ended right there.

~~~
dobbsbob
Guaranteed lawyers have already contacted her after hearing about this
assuring her she has a big settlement waiting, which she probably does. Github
will just want to make this go away and prevent her from shit talking the
brand anymore and money is the answer

------
TheCondor
I'm going to sound *ist... You know how this is solved? Seriously? If you are
abused, violated, made to feel uncomfortable, intimidated, etc... Write it
down, gather evidence, gather some witnesses and then hire a lawyer and start
suing. Go after the vc if it's a start up and the founders are involved...
That's how we got seat belts...

I just don't see much good coming from putting this in the open like this. Sue
them then do the book deal or tc article

~~~
LukeB_UK
And I don't see much good from simply suing a company without trying to work
with them in the first place.

If it was your company, surely you'd want them to try and solve it internally
first?

~~~
TheCondor
I'll clarify, sue them as opposed to taking it to twitter and a pseudo-
journalistic startup news site. I would think that it would be the last resort
and some reasonable amount of effort be made before taking that option.

Or conversely, name names, go all in. Put the bad actors on notice and let
what happens happen. It's not libel if it's true. Just all the rumors,
speculation, etc. doesn't seem good for any thing. Not everyone involved with
GitHub is an a-hole, at least I hope not..

All things being equal, I have no idea what the timelines are, I have no idea
what reasonable things were done or not, I have no idea who is on leave or
not. Yet in this thread strangers are questioning the marriage decisions of
other people... It's an ugly story and it brings out ugly in the community.
Sue everyone involved and if you win, future companies will certainly be
different. My off the cuff immediate take away? Be really careful with the
ultra social folks, big blog or big twitter following and they might just blow
up in your face in a very public way.

------
bakhy
a very nice apology, but it cannot be enough. i hope some specific action will
be taken. but somehow, i am doubtful.

it is relatively easy to apologize, and say "we will investigate". but, how
does something like this happen, if it did happen, without people knowing? Ms
Horvath stated she raised the issue, yet it took a public scandal to actually
issue a "we will investigate" statement?

at the very least, IMO, GitHub must get rid of the problematic co-founder.

~~~
bakhy
P.S. i cannot resist the impression that all this talk in the comments, about
how we don't know anything to make any conclusions, is coming from distrust of
Ms Horwath because she is a woman.

------
joyeuse6701
This validates a lot of things without explicitly doing so. Why put the
engineer in question on leave, and the wife and the founder and mentioning it
in this apology? Makes no sense unless it was because of what happened. That
isn't to say that what Julie said happened did, but there is an ounce of
credibility there. Depending on how this resolves, I may (likely) take my
business elsewhere.

~~~
brazzy
> Makes no sense unless it was because of what happened.

Makes perfect sense if you have a public watching that will see anything else
as protecting the offenders and tear you to pieces.

This mereley proves that they cannot actually _disprove_ the allegations,
since that is the only other course of action that won't make you look bad.

------
btilly
One of her claims was that she was told that the founder's wife had ALREADY
been told not to enter the building.

Unless we see confirmation that it has actually happened, I'm not going to
believe it. Statements are easy. That's just damage control. We need to see
the actual action.

I predict that the founder in question stays away for a month or so, and then
is exonerated and let back in.

------
klrr
Is bullying legal in this particular state? If so I don't get why Julia didn't
reported it to the police when it all started.

------
joeblau
One of the things I'm very curious about is what effect this will have on
GitHub's culture as a whole. I've been in a startups where one of my
colleagues triggered events that slowly began transforming our startup culture
into more of a corporate culture.

------
trhway
as one if the most important corrective actions, Github needs to bring back
cubicles or better even offices, so that a lot of the "increased collaboration
and communication" between Julie and the founder's wife ( like when the wife
would sit near Julie and stare at her) just wouldn't be able to happen.

edit: another thing that would help - it is to have some older, like in the
their 40s, people in the workforce. I mean it may be useful to have old farts
like us, who've been through sterile no-harassment environment of BigCo's, and
who would be able to spot inappropriate behavior even from a couple floors
away, and whose mere presence would calm the hormones at least a couple
notches down :)

~~~
Crito
Oh please, I've worked in open office spaces were being harassed by a founders
wife could have never happened. The presence or absence of chest-high modular
walls has nothing to do with this story.

------
fmitchell0
i guess no one sees the irony that validation in their mind comes in the form
of the co-founder 'owning up'.

if he had been silent or refuted the statements (maybe on advice from their
lawyers), would that undermine Julie's credibility?

if so, why?

~~~
sp332
It's never a good idea to pass judgement when you've only heard one side of a
dispute. I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's the case here. This
is a general rule.

------
Cacti
What a fucking circle jerk.

------
logicchains
Does Horvath's characterisation of the founder's wife remind anyone else of
Lady MacBeth? The situation seems suitably dramatic for it.

------
hanxue
Awesome response

------
att159
Who is the "relevant GitHub engineer"? The one Horvath rejected?

~~~
ww520
The one who sabotaged her work based on personal pettiness.

------
smtddr
This is the best response that could have ever been made, ever.

------
JeremyMorgan
Well that pretty much confirms what Julie said was true. Kudos to GitHub for
not trying to sweep things under the rug.

~~~
railsdude
Except there's no rug [1] anymore, JAH made sure of that.

[1] [http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-
rug](http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug)

------
logicchains
If Horvath's characterisations of the founder's wife are correct, then she
seems somewhat similar in temperament to Lady McBeth. It's easy to see why his
work is considered timeless.

------
Sindrome
Female developers are not special.

~~~
xupybd
Well they kinda are. Because we have a lack of them.

~~~
swah
So what is the fair proportion?

------
laureny
> 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.

Pretty much a full admission that everything that Julie said is true.

This is great news, but putting these people on leave seems to be too nice.
It's clear that these two people obey ethics that are in direct oppposition to
the healthy growth of the company. Surely they don't want them back?

> The founder’s wife discussed in the media reports has never had hiring or
> firing power at GitHub and will no longer be permitted in the office.

Why did it take a Techcrunch article to reach this decision? Didn't _anyone_
at Github see anything wrong with that founder's wife doing what she did,
according to Julie's statement?

> GitHub has grown incredibly fast over the past two years, bringing a new set
> of challenges. Nearly a year ago we began a search for an experienced HR
> Lead and that person came on board in January 2014

Doesn't appear so. They did get an HR person, but an experienced one? Not a
chance. No experienced HR person would have let any of that get as far as it
got. That HR person should probably be put on leave or be fired as well.

> Chris Wanstrath > > CEO & Co-Founder

This narrows down the choices: the "founder" who is the cause for all this
drama is either PJ Hyett or Tom Preston-Werner.

~~~
tw268
GitHub is known to have a dubstep and IPA culture. If they want to be a
standard bearer for feminism in tech, the transition is going to be difficult
and they are going to take some hits. The two cultures don't mix well.

It sounds like GitHub is going to have to become more stale and corporate to
survive as a larger company, which is inevitable, but hastened by their own
choices.

~~~
kevincrane
> GitHub is known to have a dubstep and IPA culture.

What point are you trying to make here? Are you a classical music and
hefeweizen type of employee typically? Or maybe based out of Seattle, in which
case you'd prefer a more grunge/PBR culture?

~~~
philwelch
Here in Seattle we like IPA so much, we invented a dark faux-IPA style called
CDA (Cascadian Dark Ale). And no one listens to grunge anymore.

~~~
matthewgifford
CDA was probably invented in Vancouver, FWIW.
[http://www.newschoolbeer.com/2012/11/who-owns-cascadian-
dark...](http://www.newschoolbeer.com/2012/11/who-owns-cascadian-dark-
ale.html)

------
nirnira
100% correct form from the media team at Andreesen Horowitz... er, I mean
Github.

------
leccine
Well Julie's story stinks. Let me just quote the last thigs she wrote and work
backwards from that.

"Two women, one of whom I work with and adore, and a friend of hers were hula
hooping to some music. I didn’t have a problem with this. What I did have a
problem with is the line of men sitting on one bench facing the hoopers and
gawking at them. It looked like something out of a strip club. When I brought
this up to male coworkers, they didn’t see a problem with it. But for me it
felt unsafe and to be honest, really embarrassing. That was the moment I
decided to finally leave GitHub."

For me, two adult individual can do whatever the hack they want to do, if it
is legal and they are both consent of doing it. Julie seems like really pissed
that other people just can have fun the way she does not like. This sounds
like a huge frustration in her towards others with different standards. This
last event seems like triggered her outrage, and that is also a sign that she
might exaggerate what was really going in Github. Don't get me wrong, as part
of a small minority I totally understand what oppression means at a workplace,
but these accusations seem a bit irrational.

~~~
hnriot
It's pretty odd for women to be hula hooping, I've never seen that, but
Julia's reaction to is is bananas. How does that make her feel threatened?
Can't she just ignore it, of course men are going to look, did the women think
nobody would notice? To me this belittles any legitimate claim she might have,
if she's this irrational about this event, then it clouds my view of other
things she says.

She also sounds confused, unless the women doing hula hooping were also taking
off their clothes then I fail to see how she thinks this looks like anything
at a strip club. If the hula women were stripping then she has a legitimate
claim that this is inappropriate in the workplace, otherwise I don't see how
this is any different to table tennis or air hockey etc.

~~~
qdog
So, if you hula hoop in public you are asking to be ogled?

Was she asking for it? Was she asking nice? Yeah, she was asking for it Did
she ask you twice? \- "Asking For It" Courtney Love and Eric Erlandson

"We had just gotten off tour with Mudhoney, and I decided to stage-dive. I was
wearing a dress and I didn't realize what I was engendering in the audience.
It was a huge audience and they were kind of going ape-shit. So I just dove
off the stage, and suddenly, it was like my dress was being torn off of me, my
underwear was being torn off of me, people were putting their fingers inside
of me and grabbing my breasts really hard, screaming things in my ears like
"pussy-whore-cunt". When I got back onstage I was naked. I felt like Karen
Finley. But the worst thing of all was that I saw a photograph of it later.
Someone took a picture of me right when this was happening, and I had this big
smile on my face like I was pretending it wasn't happening. So later I wrote a
song called "Asking For It" based on the whole experience. I can't compare it
to rape because it's not the same. But in a way it was. I was raped by an
audience, figuratively, literally, and yet, was I asking for it?" \- Courtney
Love

~~~
hnriot
If anyone starts hula hooping at my office they will surely attract a lot of
attention because it's just not something people do at work (YMMV)

I didn't say she was asking for anything, I said her credibility is weakened
by her reaction to this. Try it, get any two people at your workplace to hula
hoop and see if people come and watch, gawk or whatever word you want to call
it.

And why quote Courtney Love at me, that's about as ridiculous as quoting
Germaine Greer in response. What did CL think would happen when she jumped off
stage? She of all people understands human sexuality, and was exploiting it.
She says the big smile was her pretending it was happening, however, there are
a million other interpretations. If I jump into a hungry lion's den do I
complain when I get eaten? Ask yourself why CL is says it wasn't rape and then
it was, she's a very astute woman and knows exactly how to exploit the
attention she garners, because she sure as hell is a lousy singer.

Hula hooping doesn't look like stripping, any which way you want to spin it,
so given that she has her normality barometer so poorly calibrated, how can we
believe much else she says without applying the same thought process?

~~~
qdog
Hula hoopers weren't compared to strippers, the gawkers were compared to how
"customers" behave at the strip club. I know lots of women who do not enjoy
being "gawked" at, including my wife and daughter.

I don't think it was expected for CL to be stripped of her clothing for stage
diving, even if it maybe wasn't the best idea. However, if her gender wasn't
female, she probably would have had no problems stage diving. I was
insinuating that blaming the victim was your viewpoint, which it still seems
to be.

------
h1karu
Julie was banging a co-worker so why is she acting surprised when drama
happened ? I don't get it.

~~~
qdog
I work for a large, bureaucratic company. The only restrictions on dating (and
we have a ton of HR rules) is about reports. As long as you neither of you
report to each other or have any influence on position etc., corporate has no
problem with dating.

I can't imagine a startup caring unless you actually cause the drama, and this
doesn't sound like that case.

Grow up.

~~~
trhway
well, the founder's wife has some issue with Julia. The story sounds like a
fight for a position of an alpha-female. That gives non-zero probability to
the idea that either Julia's partner may have been of some interest to the
wife, or Julia's behavior toward the founder looked like a challenge to the
wife.

~~~
qdog
Possibly, but the story didn't mention any conflict over the person she is/was
seeing.

The founder's wife definitely seems to have a problem with Julie, but it isn't
clear from the tech crunch article why that was originally.

