
Ada Initiative No Longer Partnering with GitHub - gortok
http://adainitiative.org/2014/04/ada-initiative-no-longer-partnering-with-github/
======
diego
This reads like a prejudicial post, based on a biased interpretation of
unclear events. Not what I would expect from an organization whose goal is to
fight against prejudice.

~~~
maldeh
The post only deals with ending association, and doesn't make any direct
accusation against Github. As a feminist organization devoted to protecting
women in the workplace from similar (but not necessarily identical)
circumstances, it's only prudent to distance themselves at this point of time
regardless of whether Github's actions were truly gender-biased.

~~~
waseem_
Shouldn't it be 'innocent until proven guilty' in this case? This certainly
spreads some negative advertisement for Github. If the case is not clear, they
should wait till it's clear.

~~~
ihuman
"Innocent until proven guilty" often only applies to legality, and not
people's mentality.

~~~
baddox
It only has _legal_ status in government courts. But it can still be good
advice in a broader context.

~~~
dragonwriter
It can be, but it isn't always. The reason for the presumption of innocence
combined with the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal trials
is a judgement about the desirability of the particular effects that can be
expected with and without that principal.

It cannot automatically be assumed that those considerations generalize to
other contexts -- they must be considered in each context.

~~~
baddox
In the broader context, like in the legal context, it's not a claim about what
_is_ true, but rather a claim about what we should believe (or more
appropriately, how we should treat the accused) given the evidence we have.
You don't say "this person definitely didn't commit a crime, because we don't
have evidence," but rather "we don't consider this person guilty, and thus
don't punish him or her, _until_ we get some evidence."

------
danso
This is disappointing.

OK so let's ignore Github's investigation; what other sides to the story are
there besides what the accuser told TechCrunch and what she alludes to in
tweets? If Github needs further punishment, this has to be instigated by the
accuser, just like it would be in a civil/criminal case. Horvath has said that
she believes the treatment of her was outright illegal -- and that she has
evidence of this. This is not a situation in which an accuser/whistleblower
backs down because they don't want to be exposed...Horvath, to her credit, has
put her name to these allegations. But alleging is not enough to mandate a
punishment. Since Github has also made its defense and is standing by
it....are we supposed to side automatically with the accuser?

Github is now in a "have you stopped beating your wife?" predicament. I don't
see how the Ada Initiative can pronounce such a judgment unless they are privy
to whatever decisive evidence Horvath is currently holding on to.

------
zhemao
Really? Ada Initiative is going to throw away a partnership that was
beneficial to them and their constituents because of unproven allegations of
harassment by a founder and his wife against a single employee?

If Github was truly hostile towards women, why would they support the Ada
Initiative in the first place? Sponsoring two conferences "to support women in
open technology and culture" is not something a misogynistic organization
would do.

I do not envy Github's PR staff. It seems like they are going to have a hell
of a time repairing the damage from this incident.

~~~
comrh
Github as a corporate entity and Github as a cultural place to work are
different things. You can still have misogyny in your organization while the
company promotes the opposite.

~~~
rjknight
Indeed. To borrow a phrase from Ralph Waldo Emerson: "The louder he talked of
his honor, the faster we counted our spoons"[1]. If you _do_ have a
misogynistic workplace then sponsoring anti-misogynist causes may be a way of
covering that up (in environmental circles this is known as "greenwashing").

[1] [http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/31953/the-
louder-...](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/31953/the-louder-he-
talked-of-his-honor-the-faster-we-counted-our-spoons)

------
some_person
This seems like a weird move to take. From what I can tell, there's no clear
evidence of gender-related wrongdoing* . There _is_ one person's strong
allegations of it, and a handful of accounts saying otherwise (of mixed
trustworthiness).

So, whether you believe there was gender-related wrongdoing depends entirely
on whether you believe Julie Ann Horvath or an independent investigator, or
neither.

As such, it seems like the only reasonable conclusion for an outside party
considering an action related to github (going to work there, partnering with
them, or even just using their product) is "we don't know."

The only way we _could_ know, with any actionable level of certainty, would be
if this went to court. Until that happens, though, any punitive action we take
(like boycotting github, or ending partnerships with them), is based on a
guilty-until-proven-innocent approach founded in a single person's accusation.
That reeks of witchunting, and I'm more than a little concerned by it.

* Everything github has said seems to indicate only non-gender-related wrongdoing, specifically the founder's wife pressuring (unintentionally, according to her) employees into helping with her charity.

------
roeme
To anyone criticising their decision for whatever reason; the key lies in the
phrase

 _The sum of these events make it impossible for Ada Initiative (...)_

To me, this reads that it's not about who has done what etc. But rather that
one doesn't want to keep working with a company where an affair like this goes
down the way it has. As some agreed before here on HN; github, or rather the
participants in this affair acted, or seemed to act, like a bunch of immature
teenagers. It's understandable that this irks business partners, _as its
simply not professional_ \- usually what business is about (Or more often,
pretends to be. But that's not too relevant here). Especially when your
mission includes social/society topics, like the Ada Initiative.

I don't know, maybe it's the Ada Init. acting immature here.

Or maybe the whole "echo chamber" around github et al needs to grow up
(seriously, usually such FUD, dirty laundry, who-kisses-whom etc. is written
about in _very_ low grade magazines, one would assume such are not read by
techies/hackers). It would explain why many articles related to that are
consistently upvoted (thankfully, they seem to vanish rather fast as well).

Or maybe there's a real, general problem of our/this society lying below all
that; but I doubt that. (Not that there are no problems at all).

But serious discussion about this should go to a social science HN, in my
opinion. I would prefer if we all could nudge the scope of HN back to tech
stuff (or fields where YC backs startups, since it seems to expand since
recently).

Cause I'm getting a little fed up with all this excitement and talk about
failed social interaction between some other humans, which in contrast to the
billions of other similar mishaps on this planet, just happen(ed) to be
affiliated with a company whose products are often used around here.

------
yeukhon
Just curious, who makes the decision? The people who run the Initiative? What
about the members? Are the majority of members and participants (people who
benefit from the initiative's works) fully in supporting this break up?

Have they asked people to vote or not? Why do their opinions not matter?

I don't know what kind of work they do with Github other than hosting
repository and sponsorship -- which means it doesn't stop people fro using
Github or mentioning github.com/<username>/<reponame> on slides.

So what's the problem with the report?

Are they not happy with the whole "third-party independent investigation"?
(Someone said in other HN threads that the investigators didn't reach out to
Horvath until the end of the investigation). That shouldn't be a good reason
to quit the partnership.

Are they angry at the "[we, github] found mistakes" (which probably means very
poor management)? That's still not a good enough reason to quit. Every comapny
has some kind of problems too.

Or are they fully convinced that Github is lying and Horvath is telling the
truth? Which one? This is probably the worst reason to quit partnership.

So, which one?

------
quadrangle
This was ill-conceived from the get-go. GitHub is proprietary and encouraging
people (women or men) to get _private_ repos there is not a service to Open
Source.

------
noir_lord
Seems like a strange decision unless they know more than said in this blog
post to end a relationship that could benefit both sides.

That said I'm fiercely opposed to organisation's like the Ada Initiative since
they are inherently discriminatory in nature, I'm in favor of Egalitarianism.

If you don't think they are discriminatory imagine -

\---- "The Turing Initiative - Supporting men in open technology and culture"

"The Turing Initiative welcomes men of all kinds, and specifically welcomes
trans men and genderqueer men. We strive to be an intersectional social
justice organization." \---

We shouldn't be demanding equality for one group or another we should be
demanding it for _everyone_.

Ada Initiative - Support all people in open technology, That I would donate
to.

~~~
inklesspen
And if computer science were a field in which men have historically been
underrepresented, with company after company having culture issues about
"femprogramming culture", your Turing Initiative might have a reason to
actually exist.

~~~
noir_lord
Even if it did have a reason to exist it would _still_ be discriminatory which
was my actual point.

------
stcredzero
_The Geek Feminism Wiki has a wide range of resources such as an explanation
of why sexualized environments are harmful to women._

Sexualized environments harmful? Color me curious! So I read the referenced
page:

[http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment)

Those are all cogent points! If any hetero identifying male wants to dispute
them, I challenge him to spending a weekend in The Castro neighborhood of SF
and write a completely truthful essay chronicling his comfort level. He's
either going to end up supporting the above points about sexualized
environments by documenting reduced emotional comfort levels, or he's going to
demonstrate that he's a paragon of not-giving-a-# -- which while admirable,
being one should not be a requirement for working someplace in an office. Keep
in mind that going to The Castro is a leisure activity and such a situation is
a whole lot more voluntary than going to work.

It turns out that many of our ancestors were smart and wise people and not all
of them were merely grunting superstitious simpletons. A sublimated sexuality
hidden behind a facade of polite society can be a _powerful tool for
facilitating consensuality._ The point being that such social norms can allow
one to opt out of activities they don't care to be a part of. Granted, there
are also ways in which sublimated sexuality can be used to reduce
consensuality though the use of social pressure. Again, the key is
consensuality, and whether or not power relationships support or undermine
individual freedom, not sexuality in its entirety.

It strikes me as odd that sexuality should be wholly removed from such huge
swathes of human experience. Not only is this notion odd, but as history
demonstrates, it's starkly unrealistic. The kind of polite society that
promotes "live and let live" as a communal good arose for good reasons. As
always, things that naturally evolve have flaws, but the project of social
reform, most feminism included, rests on the underlying assumption that such
things can be fixed.

~~~
jonahx
> If any hetero identifying male wants to dispute them, I challenge him to
> spending a weekend in The Castro neighborhood of SF and write a completely
> truthful essay chronicling his comfort level.

I used to live right near the Castro and spent lots of time there. I also
lived in West Hollywood for years. I always felt completely comfortable in
both places, and not because I am a paragon of not giving a shit. Sorry, but
being looked at or hit on by a man is not, in itself, a traumatic experience.
I know your post is probably motivated by empathy, but the above comment comes
off as really weird and homophobic.

~~~
stcredzero
_Sorry, but being looked at or hit on by a man is not, in itself, a traumatic
experience._

You are reading something into what I wrote that I am not saying. Being looked
at or hit on by _people_ male or female that one isn't interested in isn't
necessarily traumatic, but certainly the usual expectation is that it isn't
completely devoid of discomfort. If that were true, then there would be no
social cost to such activity. This isn't the case for most contexts. (And you
know as well as I do that there do exist specific contexts -- certain times
and places -- where that's what the expectations are, that one is there to be
hit on.)

 _I used to live right near the Castro and spent lots of time there. I also
lived in West Hollywood for years. I always felt completely comfortable in
both places, and not because I am a paragon of not giving a shit._

And I will venture to guess that such environments are places you normally
went and felt comfortable in -- people respected your boundaries in a way you
found satisfactory, because you opted to be in a place where those were to
your liking. For many men in North America, the social norms in many places in
The Castro in SF or The Monstrose in Houston (where I lived for many years)
are not the ones they are normally accustomed to. They will feel some
discomfort. If they acknowledge the truth of that, then they will acknowledge
the discomfort of some women in the workplace.

EDIT: And it's those individuals in particular who have the most to gain from
engaging in this _gedankenexperiment_. As for you, this would probably be
preaching to the choir.

------
mrsaint
It's safe to say that GitHub won't depend on the partnership with Ada...
private repositories were offered for free to select individuals/women - that
doesn't sound like a big deal to me, at least. If anyone is looking for
private repos for free, they could get them @
[https://bitbucket.org/](https://bitbucket.org/).

~~~
railsdude
Except that feminists doesn't seem to like BitBucket as well.

~~~
smacktoward
It's a good thing we have a user named "railsdude" here to explain to us what
feminists think.

~~~
liedra
Men can (and should be!) feminists too.

------
GUNHED_158
Reading the whole story, couldn't find any sign of gender biased action from
GitHub.

~~~
waterlesscloud
I haven't followed this too closely, but GitHub got rid of the people
involved, didn't they? So why break off now? I know I'm missing something
here.

~~~
makomk
They got rid of one of the people involved who was acting in a grossly
unprofessional way. They promoted the guy she complained was retaliating
against her professionally for refusing to date him.

------
panzi
I might be biased to the meaning of significant because I had a course of
statistics once, but isn't the person in question stepping down a significant
change? It is a significant change in his life. These seem to be pretty vague
demands. What do they think would be a significant change?

------
CoachRufus87
"We will work to wind down the free private repository partnership in a way
that causes minimum harm to the women using them."

Taking away their free private repos seems pretty harmful.

------
baddox
> It was shortly followed by a blog post from the resigning co-founder which
> included a clear threat of legal action against anyone who said he or his
> wife had engaged in gender-based harassment or discrimination.

Actually, it was a clear threat of legal action against anyone who made
_false_ accusations.

~~~
notwedtm
Which, if we are to believe the results of the investigation, would be
everyone.

------
vampirechicken
Where there is arbitration, there is seldom justice.

~~~
stcredzero
Often, "arbitration" is used as window-dressing for a severe power imbalance
to continue. Arbitration only deserves to be called such if it's entered into
voluntarily by two parties with good intentions.

~~~
baddox
How could GitHub initiate anything better than a third-party investigation? Is
there some way to turn yourself in for an alleged crime, then deny that you
committed the crime and go through the government court system? It's not clear
to me what GitHub could have done better.

~~~
vampirechicken
Arbitration is not about justice, it is about the appearance of justice, while
being incredibly stacked against one party. Arbitrators are paid by the party
that demands arbitration (the corporation eg. cable, wireless, etc). If the
arbitrator does not side with the party that is paying their fees, they get
called on to arbitrate less and less, until they are no longer employed as an
arbitrator. That is a perverse disincentive to ever find against the party
paying your fees. It is much cheaper than going to court, and and you win 90%
of the time. What's not to love?

------
whiterabbit2
So, women who signed up to those repositories had no say in this decision? I
think they should've been asked first, what THEY want. Some projects might
have contributors on GitHub. Ada Initiative promises to accommodate those
people, but why weren't they talked to and accommodated before making this
decision? It's so much for Ada Initiative "helping" women treating them merely
like pawns.

------
rjknight
This is a tough one. We have Horvath's allegations, and we have confirmation
from Github that at least some of them were true. Clearly, bad things happened
and the result is the resignation of a former CEO and founder, so it's not as
though there have been _no_ consequences.

I would be interested to know which allegations the Ada Initiative think have
not been addressed, and how they would like them to be addressed.

~~~
Rantenki
Do we really expect that any findings of wrongdoing would be publicized? If
their audit publicized that sexual or gender based harassment had occurred,
that opens them up to a pretty serious lawsuit. This outcome is pretty much
the only one you can expect, regardless of the real events.

Also, the ADA initiative doesn't really have a choice here either. Either draw
a hard line, or look like they aren't able set the same standards that they
ask from others.

Finally, if the investigation at Github turned up real mistakes of judgement,
why weren't they itemized? We are left guessing what the investigator found.
Github has that report, yet they are being evasive about it's contents. Air
that stuff out. Stating that the allegations are unfounded at the same time as
revealing that undisclosed mistakes in judgement occurred, combined with
pushing out a founder: doesn't smell right.

------
facepalm
I have enough faith in women to think that for every radical feminist who
jumps ship because of this, two reasonable women will enter IT.

Who knows, actual female developers might be put off by radical feminism using
them for their agenda.

~~~
discodave
Please define "radical feminism" and how it applies to this situation?

~~~
facepalm
In this case one obvious aspect is having the basic belief that "a woman
complaining of abuse is always in the right".

~~~
comrh
The basic belief is "someone complaining of abuse" is always taken seriously.

Further, this is concerning a person with a power disadvantage in their
environment who is going to be subject to the array of classic silencing
techniques that criticize not her argument but her person.

Interestingly enough you're using one as well classifying the response as
"radical feminism". This discredits their position because they were "too
aggressive". It is another argument that adds nothing because it attacks their
tone and not ideas.

~~~
facepalm
Well what does the Ada initiative know about the case? GitHub claims they did
an investigation, and they let people go. So on what basis does Ada initiative
assume misconduct, apart from their ideology?

~~~
comrh
It is extremely common for companies and organizations to bail on
relationships with people and other companies when there is even just the
suggestion of a controversial issue. To act like this behavior is somehow
exclusive to "radical feminists" or that it means they "always assume the
female is 100% in the right" doesn't make any sense.

Also this fits pretty well:
[http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Innocent_until_proven_gui...](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Innocent_until_proven_guilty)

~~~
facepalm
Seriously? I'm sorry, but there is no alternative to innocent until proven
guilty. It's not a silencing tactic, it is a basic necessity of making complex
societies work. These women are dangerous fanatics.

------
notwedtm
Wasn't their an anonymous posting from within Github that said the Horvath was
spreading lies about Theresa sleeping with other men, and that her baby wasn't
Tom's?

That seems like at least a motivation for the actions, and at the far end of
the spectrum, a reason for it.

~~~
arjie
There is an anonymous posting that said that the other anonymous posting is
false.

[http://pastebin.com/tpMF2G0A](http://pastebin.com/tpMF2G0A)

------
b1naryth1ef
Ironically the post reads extremely sexist. "We're offended by due process!
Ahhhh the female lost; must be sexism!". I'm not arguing Github hasn't handled
this situation as well as possible, but really?

~~~
WalterSear
The fact that they handled it at all, did so publicly, removed key personnel
who were involved, and yet were sanctioned for doing so, shows you the poor
quality of dialog we have regarding gender relations in tech.

And the counterproductive, zero-sum game that modern gender advocates get
wrapped up in playing - that is a cause of it.

~~~
b1naryth1ef
The thing that frustrates me is that the only reason we can even sit here and
discuss this properly is that Github is such an open company. If someone comes
out of Microsoft and Google (low and behold there have been multiple cases),
the best you can expect is a response of "We've handled the situation
internally, and those involved have been disciplined in a way <company> deems
proper".

~~~
joshstrange
>> Github is such an open company

Did we read the same blog post [0]? While I agree that we might have seen a
little more from GitHub than we would have from MS/Google their response to
the situation was extremely lacking IMHO.

[0] [https://github.com/blog/1823-results-of-the-github-
investiga...](https://github.com/blog/1823-results-of-the-github-
investigation)

~~~
clavalle
An independent third party investigation into the matter seems like a pretty
solid response.

What other steps would you suggest they have taken that would have constituted
a satisfactory response?

~~~
CJefferson
Told us exactly what the report found.

------
lkd
So they were leeching money and resources from GitHub, and using them in a
sexist manner, and they're not going to do that anymore?

That'll show 'em!

