
Follow up to the investigation results - dctrwatson
https://github.com/blog/1826-follow-up-to-the-investigation-results
======
abalone
Horvath's response: "[My claims] are now, more or less, substantiated."

Is she delusional? The report doesn't substantiate her claim of sexism AT ALL.
They couldn't even find the malicious code removals by "the guy who she
wouldn't let fuck her" that was one of her central claims.

[https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/460865208810885120](https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/460865208810885120)

~~~
at-fates-hands
This is the double edged sword she was playing with.

If her allegations are found to have merit, then a lawsuit is what she would
file next with this as the only evidence she needs to confirm what she's been
saying.

Now that the results are in and they found nothing to support her allegations,
it looks like GitHub has a strong defamation case to bring against her.

If I was her, I'd be looking for a good attorney to represent me. Since she
never filed a lawsuit, this makes her look like what most people on the GitHub
side have been saying all along. That she's indignant, bitter and feels
entitled. Not to mention the whole time she's been feeding GitHub plenty of
ammunition via social media.

~~~
jrochkind1
1\. How the heck can you read that and say there was nothing to support her
allegations? Did you read the same thing I just read?

2\. Github suing her for defamation would be SO counter-productive, as it
would make them look awful. Also, did you see the part where they apologized
to her?

Are you sure you actually read the OP?

Clearly, their FIRST public announcement was written on the advice of lawyers
or PR people, where they admitted as little as possible, in part not to give
her 'ammunition' in court. But it made them look bad and weasely. So this is
the one they released _even though_ it gives her some ammunition.

~~~
Jun8
Please read post again, according to it the investigation found two things (in
summary):

1\. TPW and her spouse acted inappropriately

2\. There was no evidence of sexist behavior at GitHub (related to this
instance, at least).

Horvath's claims included allegations of both 1 & 2\. It's clear that her
allegations did irreparable damage to GitHub, since a lot of people won't
bother to follow this story in detail and will remember it a "sexist" place
where your code may get deleted if you don't put out.

As you say GitHub will not be able to bring defamation charges against Horvath
due to PR reasons, this is an unfortunate and sad state of affairs (and one of
the very few times I long for the strong defamation laws in Europe).

------
petenixey
A lot of the press I saw about this case focussed on allegations of sexism.

However reading the release, the gender of the injured party seems to be
independent and unrelated to the injustices which relate instead to the
apparently inappropriate behaviour of TPW's spouse and her unsanctioned
involvement in the company.

Sexism is a highly incendiary issue in this community. How did a case which
apparently was not about sexism come to be so closely related to it? Is the
report from Github incorrect or was sexism used to market this to the watching
population?

~~~
tvon
> _However reading the release, the gender of the injured party seems to be
> independent and unrelated to the injustices which relate instead to the
> apparently inappropriate behaviour of TPW 's spouse and her unsanctioned
> involvement in the company._

Reading GitHub's statements on the investigation, it seems the independent
investigator they hired found no evidence that sexism at GitHub. The
investigator did find issues with TPW's general professional behavior which is
why he resigned.

> _Sexism is a highly incendiary issue in this community. How did a case which
> apparently was not about sexism come to be so closely related to it?_

I think you answered your own question there.

> _Is the report from Github incorrect or was sexism used to market this to
> the watching population?_

That is what we call a false dichotomy. I do not see how you have narrowed it
down to those two choices, and it honestly seems like a veiled accusation.

~~~
petenixey
I was just thinking the same thing as I re-read my comment. It is a false
dichotomy and it was badly phrased.

The reason I asked it though is that if this is being used as a tool then it
takes away from the real problem. I have no doubt that there are a lot of
women in technology have experienced and do experience sexism and that is a
very bad and sad thing

However, the amplitude and focus of how this story played out (in places as
far as the British Sunday papers) and focussed on institutional sexism seems
to be very different to the facts portrayed in the report. Such harassment and
psychological pressure is of course terrifically difficult to document and I
do know that there could be several different backgrounds that fit the report
but there is still quite a distance between the two.

So the reason that I asked the question is that _if_ this is the case then
it's a massive disservice to those who are feeling the effects of genuine
sexism and weakens their voice. I suspect that that was the net effect of what
happened in the Sendgrid case and I think that is a very sad thing.

~~~
mtrimpe
> I was just thinking the same thing as I re-read my comment. It is a false
> dichotomy and it was badly phrased.

Thank you for that. It's somehow very much appreciated.

As for the sexism accusations; Many, many women feel they're being
discriminated at work ( and they're usually right.) Only a tiny, tiny
percentage chooses to speak out about it though because of the very high costs
associated with it.

My guess is that in this case Julie-Ann just happened to be one of those
silent women and when things escalated with Tom it was just a case of 'now
that my reputation will be ruined anyhow I might just as well get everything
off my chest.'

If you read her original post she also doesn't make that much of a big deal
about the sexism stuff; it's just 'one amongst many' of the abuses she listed.

Also keep in mind that, assuming she's acting in good faith, it's very likely
that the reverted commit was indeed very small and dubious but was
accompanied, verbally or non-verbally, by something that very clearly and
unambiguously communicated the real reason; but of course without leaving a
paper trail.

~~~
dreamfactory2
> If you read her original post she also doesn't make that much of a big deal
> about the sexism stuff

I thought it was the hula hooping that was the final straw for her and the
actual reason she resigned?

------
tomasien
I'm glad they're flatly acknowledging the wrong doing on what compromised the
majority of Julie's complaint.

As to her assertions that an engineer was keeping her out of the code if she
wouldn't sleep with him, I've actually lost sleep trying to figure out how
you'd handle that complaint. Where would the evidence trail be? Innocent until
proven guilty but also wanting not to assume a women is lying about sexually
harassed, how do you balance those two things? Given what we know about sexual
harassment, it's a horrible idea to operate on the assumption the accuser is
lying, but when it's just word vs. word, what do you do? Presume guilt? Can
those two employees co-exist? Can you fire the accused even if there's no
proof (and what proof would there be? Commit logs aren't much.)

Anyone have suggestions? Ideally you want to build a culture where this just
would never come up and where nobody would tolerate it, but I just don't think
that's ever going to be fool proof.

~~~
habitue
Actually I think commit logs in this case are good evidence. You can't just
rewrite git history without having everyone in on it. It's not foolproof (the
company could have mandated that everyone drop their local versions, or the
branch with the reversions could have been shared by a small number of people
who were willing to conspire), but it's very strong evidence I'd say.

~~~
XorNot
Conversely it would be pretty easy to say "well this is the official repo" and
ensure no one asks any further questions in a flurry of feux-outrage.

~~~
habitue
Actually, I see what you're saying. Tell the investigator some cleaned version
of the repo is the official one. That is a plausible way to get around it.

I still feel like it's less likely they were willing to throw a co-founder
under the bus, but would go to such great lengths to protect "some engineer".

~~~
XorNot
It doesn't even really have to be malicious so much as disinterested, which is
how most of these types of workplace problems fester. People don't set out to
actively create a caustic environment - they just don't want to be bothered
with the tricky business of preventing one.

------
the_watcher
If I'm missing something, let me know, but it seems to me that GitHub did
about all they could with this investigation (respected outside investigator,
seem to be releasing as much as they are able to, although if they stop
releasing new information/new stuff comes out through other channels, my
opinion will change). They've admitted that TPW's conduct was unacceptable and
are trying to correct that from happening again. The allegations about sexual
harassment and locking Horvath out of code seem right now don't seem to have
any merit beyond Horvath's allegations. Also, Horvath seems to have accepted
the outcome, simply noting that she disagrees with the findings, but not
raising issues with how they were arrived at or trying to impeach the
investigator's credibility. Her belief that none of this would have happened
were she male is an opinion she is entitled to, but is basically impossible to
prove at this point. It's unfortunate, but, beyond GitHub having a time
machine to go back and try to fix this as it happens, I'm not sure what else
anyone expects them to do. My hope: GitHub continues to release what they can,
they improve all their employee mediation processes, everyone agrees that they
made big improvement to their internal culture, and that eventually, this
whole ordeal is relegated to the annals of a Wikipedia subsection.

Have I missed anything?

~~~
mkhattab
You said it perfectly. However, I would add that it seems to me that at first
we give more credence to the accuser than the accused. The burden of proof in
this situation is always with the accuser and the fact that she assumed people
would believe her, and people have, is not something I respect. And being a
male has no effect on my opinion. I have pissed off my friends and especially
my family, father in particular, because I've always given the benefit of the
doubt to the accused in similar situations. My father found it particularly
annoying, rather extremely frustrating, that I wouldn't automatically support
and accept anything he would say at face value against a business partner or
relative or anyone. And my behavior is the same with friends and coworkers,
much to their annoyance.

Back to point of Julie's complaints --- we're adults here and if there's a
pattern of behavior from a coworker, then documentation is your best friend.
In fact, that should be an automatic rule: any communication with colleagues
in the workplace should be documented, either via email or chat, and kept
short and to the point otherwise. If there exists a friendship between
coworkers and there is fallout due to conflict, assuming there is no evidence,
the accuser/accused should just let it go because that's what friends do. You
can't demand professionalism when the principle hasn't been observed in the
first place.

Being a man, woman, father, mother, doesn't absolve one's responsibility from
presenting evidence for the truth, even if they have a history of being
honest. More importantly, our attitudes towards the accused should initially
be of giving benefit of the doubt.

~~~
bwy
^ This. This is a key in this story.

Consider how what the cost is to Horvath here, how she can say whatever she
wants, launching a huge firestorm, and oh, 1/3 accusations is provable. (And
one, about the guy removing her code, is actually pretty much disproven.)

Continuing to call the workplace "toxic" is objectively and clearly an
overstatement as well.

------
natural219
This sounds very snide, but honestly, I don't think the people collectively
calling for Github's head have given them any other choice. It's clear that
people are unwilling and unable to listen to the facts of the case. They have
their pre-set opinions on what happened based off of one side of the story. At
this point, I'm not sure what Github should do. They have done their best to
give lip service to these complains. Here is the first comment already:

"When you've dug yourself into a hole you should stop digging"

I agree. I don't think it's worthwhile for the Github PR team to continue to
address and give legitimacy to those voices who are beyond reason and simply
want to express anger.

~~~
malandrew
I actually feel that this last response is exactly how PR should work. It has
placed responsibility for misconduct where it for the actual misconduct that
actually happened and needs correcting and has done a pretty good job of
invalidating the histrionic claims of gender discrimination.

This additional information (the identity and reputation of the investigator
and the level of detail investigated including review of the commits) taken
together with JAH's commits to her own public projects [0][1] and exaggerated
and overly dramatic behavior, there is more than enough reasonable doubt to
vindicate the male engineer being accused of misconduct. Absent a reliable
witness to the claimed misconduct or other solid irrefutable evidence (not
just perceptions of what happened), the principle of innocent until proven
guilty should extend to this accused individual as well.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7625258](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7625258)

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7629283](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7629283)

~~~
qeorge
Referring to Julie-Ann's complaint as "histrionic claims about gender
discrimination" is unjustified and offensive.

To do so implies that she invented those feelings to further her case. There
is absolutely nothing in the record to support such an accusation.

~~~
malandrew
If you actually want a fair investigation where the goal is justice, the last
thing you do is go to the media and kick off a trial by peanut gallery.

Going to the media first is the very definition of "exaggerated dramatic
behavior designed to attract attention".

There's nothing wrong with going to the media first with a story of gender
discrimination if you have the hard evidence to support your allegations. If
you don't, taking that nuclear option without evidence will only discredit you
because choosing the nuclear irrefutable evidence is careless and unjustified.
If anything, JAH has actually damaged the ability for other women to use the
nuclear option in the future. A hypothetical future situation in which a woman
steps forward with gender discrimination claims like those made by JAH will be
met with greater skepticism than in an alternate reality where she had stuck
to only making claims about those things she could prove.

She should have only gone to the media with the story of misconduct by TPH and
his wife (which near as I can tell was gender neutral with respect to the
misconduct in question, since both men and women were impacted.)

------
projectramo
I think this is a much stronger response than the previous one for the
following reasons: 1\. It is a lot less mysterious. It tells us exactly what
steps they took, and why they felt the investigator was appropriate. 2\. They
do admit faults and weaknesses, especially on the truly bizarre part of the
original claims (i.e. showing up at a company where you don't work). If that
part had been denied, then something was factually missing. 3\. The part where
they do claim they were not at fault -- the engineer's work -- doesn't come
across as defensive.

I don't know how they could have done a better job. (I am not saying they
could not have done a better job, just that I can't think of it).

------
gregd
Isn't it entirely possible that the situation with TPW exacerbated the
situation with the Engineer and the toxic workplace environment? At least in
Julie's eyes, since she received the brunt of TPWs inappropriateness?

I'm sure that if I was under that kind of stress from one of the Founder's of
the company I was working for, it would most likely contribute to me seeing
other encounters as something that it wasn't...

~~~
SolarNet
Very much this. This report doesn't discredit's Horvath's perspective of
sexism, it in fact supports it. The reality that there isn't sexism in general
isn't in-congruent with that. The report also speaks of github's HR failures
(that a founder (indirectly) was able to harass her repeatedly because of her
gender), which Horvath explained as being a big reason for her view of sexism
at the company.

~~~
rhizome
I'm led to think that Tom Preston-Werner got off easy here.

 _failure to enforce an agreement that his spouse should not work in the
office_

It had been a big enough problem before that they had a formal agreement
prohibiting it.

~~~
asuffield
Why did he get off easy? Who's going to work for him now?

~~~
rhizome
Just off the top of my head, he was allowed to resign rather than fired for
cause.

~~~
offbrand
Perhaps he resigned before the investigation was over.

~~~
rhizome
It's right there in the statement:

 _After being presented with the results we felt Tom could no longer be an
effective leader at GitHub. He offered his resignation and we accepted._

------
pron
Horvath's response: _I 'm pretty satisfied with @Defunkt's blog post. I
disagree about the objectiveness of the "investigation," as well as the toxic
workplace._

[https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore](https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore)

~~~
xacaxulu
I disagree with the results of the investigation since they don't support my
claims and actually show some of them to have no substantial evidence in their
favour. I'm glad someone got fired over this even though my initial and highly
incendiary claims of sexism, the grounds on which this investigation was
started, were shown to be false.

------
maccard
This is a really sticky issue, however I can't help but feel that Julie is
handling this quite unprofessionally. She has been posting for the last hour
on twitter about how she is satisfied with the blog post, however feels that
everything was wrong, and she's actually going and naming names. (other than
TPW), which is completely unfair IMHO.

She says that she strongly believes that this would have not happened to a
man, and the report says that they found no evidence of sexism in the
workplace. This has been brought up before, but is it at all possible that
some of the treatment she received was because she is difficult to work with,
rather than because she is a girl? Nothing in the report points to anything
having happened that was specific to what JAH talked about, could it in fact
be the case that people are treating a sub-par, or difficult employee (in
their own eyes) differently to others around her, and in her mind, in (what I
asssume is) a predominantly male workplace, she sees this as discrimination? I
don't know what to think, but unless there's any evidence either for or
against, I think the only reasonable assumption that we can make is that there
may have been fault on both parties sides, the extent of which is unknown.

~~~
chippy
I wonder if she has had any legal advice.

------
Tomte
So basically the blog post seems to me to claim this:

Ms. Horvath was right with her allegations about a founder and his wife,
unbelievable as that wife story sounded at first.

She flat-out lied about the engineer who sabotaged her because she wouldn't
sleep with him.

And she lied about not being contacted or interviewed in the course of the
investigation.

The truth of all this is undecidable by the public, of course.

This drama can go on virtually forever, unless it is settled in court.

Maybe it's best to detach oneself emotionally from it. It's impossible to
choose sides.

------
lesingerouge
So bottom-line: the company is not a haven for male brogrammer types, the
founders fucked up and please engineers don't let this scandal affect you.

Still, there's a bitter taste left here. The whole situation remains somehow
murky and nobody has benefited from this "clarification". My personal opinion
is that if you have a disagreement and there's grounds for legal proceedings,
you should start the legal proceedings. It might be an uphill battle, it might
eventually prove useless, but at least it's a final answer to a question.

My guess is that this public storm did not help anybody: neither Julie, nor
Github, nor the movement against sex discrimination in the workplace.
Everybody still thinks they were right and no "final" solution was shown. And
most importantly, with regard to the real issue (the discrimating treatment),
nobody DID nothing. The founder just quit (without being accused of much and
without "paying" for anything), Github is still the best place in the world to
work in (as it was before this thing happened) and somehow Julie seems to be a
little more paranoid than before (hey what can we do, an independent expert
did not confirm her story).

Back to square one on this one.

~~~
DatBear
So you're saying that nobody benefits unless they sue the other person?

~~~
lesingerouge
Not exactly. I am saying that public opinion does not benefit unless the law's
involved. If discrimination is not condemned clearly and if the perpetrators
can hide behind press releases and teary eyed blog posts, nobody benefits.

------
windsurfer
> Employees were asked about their experiences here, good and bad. Women at
> GitHub reported feeling supported, mentored, and protected at work, and felt
> they are treated equitably and are provided opportunities.

I'm glad to see the claims of sexual and gender based harassment don't seem to
be true. Perhaps larger companies should make it part of their culture to have
a periodic audit similar to this investigation?

~~~
mtrimpe
> I'm glad to see the claims of sexual and gender based harassment don't seem
> to be true.

Not to be pedantic, but it implies there is no _systemic_ sexual and gender
based harassment. It doesn't say anything about Julie-Ann's experiences except
that they're not provable.

~~~
malandrew
If you're a reasonably intelligent person subject to real wrongdoing of this
nature, would it not behoove you to collect evidence that will support your
allegations of misconduct when you finally make your claim public? The fact
that there really is not one piece of evidence she's been able to produce
leads me to believe that claims of sexual misconduct are anything more than
imagined.

I've been in a situation where I was reasonably certain that I observed
fiduciary misconduct. At the time I basically had three choices:

(1) stay at the company and ignore it (2) stay at the company and collect
irrefutable evidence and expose the wrongdoing; or (3) ignore it and leave the
company because it was not my problem to deal with and would be more damaging
to my career to do something about it.

There was never a 4th option: "expose the wrongdoing with no concrete
evidence". I didn't have enough to substantiate any allegations. It's entirely
possible that I could have even been mistaken about what actually happened
since my relationship with the person in question was rocky and I might have
been projecting my negative perceptions of that person onto a novel situation.
Without collecting concrete evidence to prove my allegations, I couldn't even
be certain of what happened, much less certain that exposing the wrongdoing
without evidence would be fruitful.

The burden of proof was the responsibility of the accuser, and in this
instance the accuser has failed to substantiate claims made.

~~~
mtrimpe
If we extend that line of reasoning then if you're raped but can't prove it
you should stay silent because making it public without hard evidence is just
not an option.

~~~
malandrew
Strawman. Rapes leave evidence [0]. Spoken words don't.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_kit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_kit)

~~~
silencio
Rape kits don't necessarily show consent or lack thereof, which is crucial but
usually ends up boiling down to being a he-said-she-said problem. You could
know who the rapist is with a rape kit that also points to the same person and
still be dragged through the mud with the "you must have enjoyed it because
you're a slut/you slept with him/her in the past" kind of crap - not many
people can deal with that so.....yeah. Plus they are not always the end-all to
a rape case even if you have proof of physical contact with no consent.

That's before you even get to any problems before you reach the rape kit stage
- I've read way too many depressing posts on r/twoxchromosomes and other sites
where women don't even know if they've been raped because they don't remember
it after being drugged (good luck with a kit that late) or don't think it
"crosses the line" or are just like "it was a bad night" if their boyfriend
rips their clothing off and tries to have sex with them even though they were
saying "no" and crying the whole time. Usually comes hand in hand with a
culture that likes to perpetuate bullshit like "you can't change your mind in
the middle of having sex" and "married people can't be raped by their
partner".

Gooood luck with rape reporting in general, there's a reason - no, many
reasons - why so many people keep silent.

------
mikeleeorg
In regards to Julie's statement of GitHub being a "toxic workplace" and the
findings of this investigation, I think what we're seeing here is how
microcosms of culture can affect the whole organization.

When I worked at a large corporation, it was easy to find people who
absolutely loved the culture of the company, and people who absolutely hated
it. If you drilled down with each person, it would come down to their personal
experiences with their everyday team members. Daily interactions are often
extrapolated to the culture of the company as a whole, for better or worse.

So I think both Julie and the report are right. For Julie, her experience was
very horrible, and since it involved a cofounder, it's no surprise at all that
she saw this as a systemic part of the GitHub culture.

And if the other female employees did not have to endure similar experiences,
it's no wonder that others do not share the belief of GitHub as a toxic
workplace.

The takeaway for founders and leaders: culture can't just be set from the top,
it must be reinforced at every level of an organization.

------
reidmain
And unfortunately this will change no one's opinion. GitHub got tried in the
court of public opinion and was sacrificed.

Short of having audio or video or evidence those who backed GitHub feel
vindicated, those who backed Julie Ann Horvath will see this as the "Mad Men"
culture of Silicon Valley exercising their muscle to supress the story. The
small but sane few in-between who were waiting for the full story will never
get it because the other two sides are just going to throw hyperbole until the
cows come home.

I wonder if we will ever be able to have a sane conversation about the "sexism
in the Valley" or the fact that it concerns itself with something that is so
technologically intrenched the mob mentality of the Internet will always draw
centre stage.

~~~
mtrimpe
Excuse you; it changes my opinion and I'm a pretty staunch feminist, social
justice warrior or whatever else you may call me.

The previous public statement was a disgrace and is exactly what you get when
you let lawyers recommend you what to do; which includes soulless
recommendation to fire anyone who _raises_ harassment complaints after three
months; even if they are valid.

This statement is OK and I'll give them a pass on it.

~~~
smirksirlot
Exactly. If they came out with this response first this shitstorm probably
wouldn't have escalated to this point.

~~~
icelancer
This response took measured time and deep analysis. It couldn't have come out
in 5 minutes by the very nature of the work done.

~~~
smirksirlot
Then Github should have held off on that legalese post that incited anger. You
can't put something like that out re: an issue that involves so much human
emotion.

------
bnb
I haven't read the rest of the comments, but am I the only one who finds it
strange that GitHub says that Horvath was contacted for the investigation, yet
she says she wasn't?

~~~
dcope
She retracted and said she was actually contacted (later in the day):
[https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/453337287766450176](https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/453337287766450176).

------
csense
For those who think tarring and feathering the Github organization as a whole
is still justified:

What would it take to change your mind?

One of the signs of an irrational belief about the world is that it's not
_falsifiable_ \-- you can't conceive of a possible future observation that
would cause you to change your belief.

~~~
laughinghan
Was this inspired by a Less Wrong post[1]? I really liked it at first, but
eventually realized it's almost completely inapplicable in real life (except
possibly theological discussions).

For example, in this case, there are things well within the realm of physical
possibility that would in fact change the mind of every single person "tarring
and feathering" GitHub, such as Julie Ann Horvath and Melissa Severini
publicly announcing this was all a hoax. And vice versa, of course.

Of course we all think that's unlikely happen, but the point stands that
people on both sides of this discussion came to their beliefs through a
combination of evidence and emotion, and could be dissuaded by the same; and
your not-so-subtle suggestion that people on the side opposite you are being
"irrational" is unfounded and in bad faith.

[1]:
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/jr/how_to_convince_me_that_2_2_3/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/jr/how_to_convince_me_that_2_2_3/)

------
WoodenChair
I hope the chorus of people who took the accuser's allegations at face value
will take GitHub's investigation results at face value as well... oh wait.

~~~
hashbanged
Is that usually how things work? I thought we tend to believe whistleblowers
over the institutions with financial interests that they speak out against?

Obviously I'm not saying everything that comes out of a whisteblower's mouth
is absolute truth, but if you take GitHub's words at face value without
considering their financial interests, etc, you're thinking very uncritically.

~~~
jgon
Actually things generally only work that way when the whistleblower has
evidence of the things they claim. For instance, if Edward Snowden had come
forward with claims of pervasive global surveillance by the NSA he would have
been written off as paranoid like the many, many people who had made that
claim before him. What made Snowden different is that he also brought with him
verifiably authentic documentation of said surveillance among other things.

In this case we have the difficult choice of either dismissing claims of
harassment and sexism, which is not a good thing to do if we want to help put
an end to those things, or uncritically accepting someone's word without any
evidence to back it up. And in fact with evidence going the other way, however
insubstantial it may be. Doing that would not be good for the precept that one
is innocent until proven guilty, which is something that is important to
preserve for the disadvantaged, even when it benefits those in power.

At this time the only people who are making verifiable claims are github: They
have hired an investigator who they believe to be competent and impartial.
They name this person and their record can be investigated by anyone who
cares. The investigator's report turned up evidence of bad behavior by the CEO
and they took it seriously enough that he was removed.

Where do we go from here? As I said above, neither road is desirable and there
isn't an easy answer. But I don't think that you can just say we should accept
Ms. Horvath's word uncritically either, at least not when we have nothing to
back up her claims.

~~~
hashbanged
Yeah, that's fair. I'm not sure GitHub's verifiable claims are worth anything
though.

I think there are some good reasons to assume Julie's credibility. Like other
whistleblowers, the consequences for speaking up are extreme. Not a lot of
people I know would open themselves up to the kind of harassment and character
assassination that Julie has for no reason.

While it's good that she hasn't turned out to be "unemployable," as many
people insisted, the reality is that she has made her life a lot more
difficult by speaking out than she would have if she kept quiet. What would
she have gained by lying? I'm open to suggestions, but I feel like most of the
things people are saying comes down to "disgruntled employee wants revenge"
which I find really unconvincing considering the attacks on her character.

If someone doesn't believe that there is pervasive sexism in ANY male
dominated industry, I don't know what I can say to convince them. But the
truth is that if any HR person (and that's really what this independent
investigator is, an HR contractor) asked people if they experienced sexism at
work at any of my jobs, people would've been reluctant to be the one to call
it out even though it is pervasive.

You're right though, I don't pretend to know objectively what happened. I just
think there are a lot of good reasons not to weigh the words of a
whistleblower equally with the company trying to protect itself and its
investors.

~~~
kemayo
> Not a lot of people I know would open themselves up to the kind of
> harassment and character assassination that Julie has for no reason. [...]
> What would she have gained by lying?

Some people really like attention. I've known people who'll lie about things
like that just for the sake of being in the public eye.

Alternately, she might have not expected the harassment, and thought of it as
extra fodder for getting GitHub to compensate her for the stuff that their
investigation says definitely happened.

To be clear: I'm not saying either of these _is_ the case for Horvath. Just
that the hypothetical "she was knowingly lying" case could be explained by
these motivations.

~~~
hashbanged
> Some people really like attention.

Really? Like what? Can you give an example relevant to this discussion?

> Alternately, she might have not expected the harassment

Lol, I don't think it's possible to be a woman on the internet as much as she
is and think something like that. This statement is ignorant of the reality of
literally every woman on the internet who criticizes a predominantly male
community.

> To be clear: I'm not saying either of these is the case for Horvath. Just
> that the hypothetical "she was knowingly lying"

Sure, I just think those hypothetical explanations are weak considering the
arguments I put forward. I think Julie would have to be really dense not to
know that coming forward the way she did would have consequences.

~~~
kemayo
>Really? Like what? Can you give an example relevant to this discussion?

Sure... here's a recent news story that springs to mind, from back in
December: [http://abcnews.go.com/US/waitress-anti-gay-tipping-
scandal-l...](http://abcnews.go.com/US/waitress-anti-gay-tipping-scandal-
longer-restaurant/story?id=21140626)

That's someone who made up an attack, presumably for the purpose of gaining
sympathy. I doubt they intended it to go national like it did, but...

------
suprgeek
I was reading this intently to find an answer to the central question that was
alleged and provable beyond reproach. Did another developer "...rip out code"
from the git repo due to personal issues?

Almost every thing else could devolve to he-said-she-said (or she-said-she-
said in this case). However code commits (and subsequent reverts) are
extensively tracked.

Assuming they can roughly pinpoint the time window involved I genuinely wonder
how they conclusively proved that it did not happen.

If it were true, then that engineer should have been immediately terminated
FOR CAUSE and sued in court. Also given the fact that he is still employed
(and presumable just recently promoted) would have made GitHub look much
worse. Regardless, it looks like that allegation was unsubstantiated,

~~~
kemayo
It says in the post.

> The commit history, push log, and all issues and pull requests involving
> Julie and the accused engineer were reviewed. The investigation considered
> all possible commits surrounding the accusation of passive-aggressive code
> removal. One instance was found where the engineer updated and broke some
> CSS in an internal application, which was fixed in a later commit. The
> investigator determined this change did not appear malicious.

Sounds like they reviewed all commits by the accused person, and found nothing
that fit the accusation.

------
cwp
Well, for all the mistakes they've made, I'll give Github credit for one
thing, at least: they're listening.

------
whiterabbit2
An agreement that a spouse shouldn't work in the office. Gosh, this is even
worse then the original complaint. In California you can't have such
agreements, this is marital status discrimination. I don't know what kind of
job Teresa was doing, but even thought she wasn't on a payroll, being a
volunteer or an informal adviser is perfectly acceptable. If anything might be
wrong here, this would be mixing up corporations or such. But employees are in
the company to do their job, not to control borders, and "this person is not
supposed to be here" sounds territorial and toxic. You're busy, not open for
certain interactions, tell about it. I suspect it wasn't Julie who got
harassed, especially combined with spreading gossip. And I find it incredibly
sexist consistently referring to a professional woman as a "wife". Compare to:
"I insist that this engineer/marketer/director shouldn't be on the floor".

~~~
FireBeyond
No, you misinterpret. "Your wife, who is not employed by the company, cannot
keep coming to our headquarters and using it / setting up a de facto office,
let alone harassing employees to do pro bono work for her startup." Not "your
spouse cannot be employed here".

------
seanhandley
Regardless of what actually may have occurred at Github between Horvath and
any other Github employees, in court the case would be dismissed on lack of
evidence.

Her response on Twitter, on the other hand, will stand for all time as a
testament to her character and I'm afraid it won't do her any favours as she
comes across as having a strong sense of entitlement.

I don't think people should be expected to accept mistreatment. But it swings
both ways - they shouldn't be allowed to believe that their point of view is
any better or more right than anyone else's and the things she said smack of
someone who is angry they didn't get what they wanted.

There were hurt feelings at Github. I can appreciate that. In the public eye,
though, you have to handle it with dignity - you have to be beyond reproach.
And I think the things she said on her Twitter feed have done a remarkable job
of painting her in the worst light possible and put her credibility beyond
repair.

------
erikb
I'm still sceptical. I'm not a woman but it sounds reasonable to think that
woman have a hard time talking truthfully about how bad they are really
treated. It is less likely for a woman to convince the public that something
bad was really bad and even from day one of coming out the woman receives more
hate than the man.

I also heard that statistics say, there are more false negatives (= woman said
bad things happened but investigation says it's untrue) than false positives
(=woman successfully lied about things happened).

All that decreases my trust in such a clear "false positive" investigation
result, although I admire GitHub for publicly working on that issue. I hope
that beside saying that they didn't do much wrong, that they increase whatever
they are doing to keep the workplace safe and healthy for the female
employees.

------
jim-greer
If every company were run with as much thoughtfulness, talent, and passion as
Chris Wanstrath has, our industry would be a lot better for everyone - women
included.

------
EvenThisAcronym
>Even so, we work in a world where inequality exists by default and we have to
overcome that. Bullying, intimidation, and harassment, whether illegal or not,
are absolutely unacceptable at GitHub and should not be tolerated anywhere.
GitHub is committed to building a safe environment for female employees and
all women in our community... I'm sorry to everyone we let down, including
Julie. I realize this post doesn't fix or undo anything that happened. We're
doing everything in our power to prevent it from happening again.

Why the apology on Github's part after it was concluded that there was no
gender-based harassment towards the engineer in question? Is this apology
pertaining to the other issues?

~~~
leahculver
I think this is saying that even though GitHub is not guilty in this case,
sexism is a real issue in the industry.

~~~
malandrew
Most all the sexism issues in the industry start in elementary school and
persist until anyone, male or female, enters the work force. Teachers and
parents (male or female) all participate in fostering and perpetuation the
issues encountered in industry.

To claim its an "industry thing" is naïve. Open-source isn't an industry and
almost every single open-source community begins and matures absent any
industry involvement at all. By the time business opportunities arise in a
community, the culture is already mature and well-formed.

NodeJS for example is a viable part of the tech industry now, but 4-5 years
ago it was a bunch of hobbyists. There was no industry to speak of. I imagine
that most of the members of that community back then were men, just as it is
today. This suggests that the entire NodeJS like almost every other tech
community has formed its identity well before every being an "industry".

Want to solve this issue? Find out how to make sure future new tech
communities are more egalitarian and inclusive from day one. Trying to bolt
that on afterwards may mitigate the harms, but it certainly isn't going to fix
them. Path dependency has presents problems, but you can't just ignore the
role of path dependency in getting us to where we are now.

~~~
zenbowman
This is a great point. Open source communities are ones in which you are very
unlikely to see any sexism, as most people in these communities neither see
each other, nor have a very clear way of identifying gender, and generally
hold egalitarian political beliefs to boot.

So its clear that the idea of gender roles starts much earlier. Now whether
you think that gender roles are a bad thing, or you think they are a
reasonable evolutionary strategy that has contributed to our success (we are
certainly not the only mammals who adopt gender roles), that's a separate
question.

There are also certain biological reasons that may lead to more men being
attracted to these fields - Robert and Chevrier found boys performed
significantly better in spatial tasks than girls, but girls performed better
at language tasks. So maybe as programming moves from lower-level languages
(more spatially oriented) to higher level languages, we'll see more women get
into the field.

I personally have worked with some excellent women in the tech world, and
think the presence of at least some women on the team changes the dynamic for
the better, but if we want to do it correctly, we cannot pretend that biology
doesn't play a role. We'll have to make the strengths of the different genders
work together.

------
zobzu
it's interesting how public opinion is always right (even thus it generally
has none of the facts), and public opinion is also always looking to accuse
'guilty until proven innocent' corps - if possible, the ones that have been
actually nice and caring to the said public.

Be it GitHub, Mozilla, what not - the last weeks have been particularly sad.

~~~
tomp
Indeed... now more than ever it seems that computer technology is under
assault by different fractions furthering their own political ideals... My bet
is it was ultimately caused by money - as there is more and more money to be
made in/with tech, more and more people who cannot compete with ideas start
competing with politics _cough_ managers _cough_ :) Why can't we just work
together, and view other people through the lens of how exceptional their work
is?! Ironically, GitHub's Meritocracy Rug was one of the first victims.

------
roma1n
This would go down so much better if the conclusions were released by the
investigator, in her own words...

~~~
sloanesturz
I would be really surprised if that entire blog post wasn't reviewed and re-
reviewed by the investigator (and their new head of HR) several times over.

------
doughj3
Can anyone share context here? This post mentions a post from last week, which
itself references something from last month. What allegations were made, by
whom, and where?

~~~
joshstrange
You can find Github's last statement on the matter here [0]. As to the
allegations they were made by Julie Ann Horvath [1] and you can find them in
the following articles:

Julie Ann Horvath Describes Sexism And Intimidation Behind Her GitHub Exit [2]
HN [4]

GitHub Engineer Quits After Alleging Gender Harassment [3]

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

[1] [https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore](https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore)

[2] [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/)

[3] [http://valleywag.gawker.com/github-engineer-quits-after-
alle...](http://valleywag.gawker.com/github-engineer-quits-after-alleging-
gender-harassment-1544559154)

[4]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7408055](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7408055)

------
bowlofpetunias
> _Our rapid growth left the leadership team, myself included, woefully
> unprepared to properly handle these types of situations._

Can we now stop touting immature companies and bad employership as the future
corporate organization? Please?

When you put people together in an organization, shit happens. There has to be
absolutely no malice involved for things like this to happen. Shit just
happens. People fuck up, and sometimes their fuck ups hurt other people. I did
it, you did it, we all did.

But not creating a decent company structure to deal with that reality and
instead make your company an experiment in social Darwinism under the guise of
"meritocracy" and "no managers" is utterly irresponsible. It's begging for
shit to escalate and people to take advantage.

If you have over an x-number of people in your company, you need people to
manage that, which has fuck all to do with hierarchy.

So Github " _recently we hired an experienced head of HR_ ". Over 200
employees, over $100 million in funding, and now they finally fucking bother
to hire someone to look out for them.

I'm not so much pissed off at Github as I am at the entire tech community that
have been cheer-leading running a company so badly.

"People are their own managers" works fine when it's just about work. But it
isn't. It never is, _because they are people_. With all the dumb, stupid and
sometimes ugly stuff they do besides just work.

Employees are not lab rats.

P.s.

And don't use "rapid growth" as an excuse. It was an ideology. Github's
leadership didn't believe they needed to be prepared, that somehow these
things would magically not happen in their happy start-up commune.

------
Asparagirl
If only there were another woman to whom very similar events had happened at
GitHub...someone well-respected, like, I dunno, the very first hire they ever
made...if only she had an incredibly similar story to tell that ended with her
leaving and then winning a settlement from the company for the abuse she
suffered...OH WAIT

 _" We've confirmed with a GitHub employee that "the wife" is in fact Theresa
Preston-Werner, making her husband complicit in covering up (or at least
condoning) repeated allegations of harassment and abuse at the company he
helped create. We're told this is certainly not the first time the Preston-
Werners have treated a female employee this way: Melissa Severini, the
company's very first hire, was allegedly paid to sign a non-disparagement
agreement after being victimized by Theresa Preston-Werners and subsequently
terminated. Other employees have been pressured to do pro bono work for
Theresa Preston-Werner's own startup, Omakase."_ (From ValleyWag, March 17th)

According to Severini's Twitter feed (as of early April), the "investigator"
never contacted her.

~~~
yulaow
Just a question partially unrelated: Since when it is legal to make a non-
disparagement agreement? It is like a wtf limitation of freedom to speech and
tell the truth

Never ever heard of something like this in EU and I can find only articles
related to US. Anyone can instruct me?

~~~
asuffield
In general there is no legal or moral barrier to being paid for your silence,
as long as you are not covering up an actual crime by doing so.

Keep in mind that this isn't an employment contract clause, it is a cash bribe
to stay quiet. Your freedom is not impaired: you have the choice between
saying whatever you like or taking the money.

~~~
dpweb
No judgement on GH but isn't a cash bribe to cover up harassment exactly that
- covering up a crime? California doesn't have state laws against harassment?

~~~
Nelson69
With the massive prevalence of twitter, facebook, tumblr and other social
platforms where people not just speak about work but are actually hired in
this day because of their crowd appeal, I think these agreements are a lot
less about covering up crimes.

Far more torrid things have happened at the biggest companies in the world.
Stuff like outright sexual favors for advancement. Just bad stuff, the big
difference seems to be active HR, active corporate attorneys and the general
ban on talking about what goes on at work in your social media. It doesn't
take many 6 figure settlements to "fix the culture" at a place, and if fixing
it means removing a highup officer, that happens too
([http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2012/11/13/lockhe...](http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2012/11/13/lockheed-
martin-ceo-to-be-scandal.html))

Honestly, I'd think more start-ups would start to develop more serious twitter
and social media policies. I don't know of one that didn't have some
disgruntled former employees, just due to the demands and the personal nature
of start-ups.

------
chollida1
Does this report say that the investigator talked to Julie, or atleast tried
to talk to Julie?

That was one of Julie's original complaints about the original post.

If I'm investigating a complaint by someone, it seems reasonable that the
person making the complaint would be the main person to talk to. Otherwise its
impossible to say you did a thorough investigation.

~~~
matart
_Rhoma identified the employees she wanted to talk to based on an initial list
we provided, the evidence she gathered, employees who asked to speak with her,
people Julie asked her to speak with, and anyone else she determined was
relevant, including Julie herself_

You have to read the article if you are going to comment on it.

~~~
chollida1
Ummm, that just says that Julie was put on an initial list. It does not say in
any clear way that the investigator contacted and interviewed Julie.

So to quote another hacker new user "You have to read the article if you are
going to comment on it." :)

~~~
kemayo
I'd think that "people Julie asked her to speak with" strongly implies some
direct communication between them...

------
jMyles
Much better.

------
srhngpr
_" GitHub is committed to building a safe environment for female employees and
all women in our community"_

Why can't this be stated as: _GitHub is committed to building a safe
environment for ALL employees and all PEOPLE in our community._

~~~
cantankerous
Context. The issue at hand is regarding the mistreatment of women. Of course
it makes sense to frame it that way.

------
jowiar
I don't like the defense I'm seeing here of "Oh, we're not talking about
outright sexists, just equal-opportunity jackasses. Therefore, the claims of a
sexist environment don't hold".

I've worked with very few outright sexists/racists/whatever-ists in tech (and
judging by this discussion, they definitely exist, they're loud, but the vast
majority of us have a consensus as to what we think of them). But I've worked
with a large number of people (and occasionally/regretfully have ventured into
this group myself) who can be described as "equal opportunity jackasses".

The reality is this - the damage of being an "equal opportunity asshole" is
felt more strongly by marginalized groups. When a white male is mistreated by
$jackass, the thought process goes like: "$jackass is being a jackass to me.".
When a member of $marginalized_group is mistreated by said jackass, the
thought process is: "$jackass is being a jackass to me. Is it because I'm a
member of $marginalized_group?" and every future interaction with that person
is tinged with that thought process: "I'm still $marginalized_group... Is
$jackass going to be a jackass to me?" The motivation of the jackass is
irrelevant - they creates a space where the negativity falls more heavily on
marginalized groups - that is, behavior that isn't overtly discriminatory
creates a space that is.

Can we please try being nice to each other for a change? Not just because it
creates a more inclusive environment, but because it creates one that's a
whole lot healthier for all of us. We in tech idolize a whole lot of people
who can probably be described as equal opportunity assholes (Jobs, Bezos, and
Torvalds immediately jump to mind), but really - let's look at what our words
and actions are doing to each other. I don't think there's a single one of us
here who isn't guilty of this at some point - and I don't think any of us can
promise never to be a jackass in the future. But let's not call it a mark of
honor -- or behavior to be imitated. If you're being a jackass, don't justify
it. Apologize for it. And try to do better in the future.

------
HelloNurse
"Our rapid growth left the leadership team, myself included, woefully
unprepared to properly handle these types of situations."

Sorry, but mature and responsible people would look out for bad attitudes and
bad workplace relationships since before the company begins operation. The
only people who are "unprepared" to deal with abusive behaviour are those
insensitive and morally corrupt enough to tolerate bad people and bad habits
until actual trouble begins.

It sounds like external social pressure is forcing GitHub management to grow
up all of a sudden, confirming the existence of serious problems.

------
kungfoo
While some have already shown this sentiment. Can I just say that we should
all give mad props to github for taking additional steps to provide this
transparency. They could have just ended with their original post, taken the
windfall, and let the controversy die down. It takes guts to put out a
statement like that (both legally as well as an admission of wrong doing) and
I think it shows that Chris Wanstrath is the right person to take lead of the
company. Removing a person (or couple) who abuses their power like Tom
Preston-Werner is probably for the best.

------
DAddYE
TBH if on one side I appreciated Github transparency I feel this story made
the company very vulnerable to a point (of no return?) that I think will be
hard to recover.

Also, I wish false allegations in this world will be treated in the very same
way if were true: so instead of "We apology with Julie ..." I prefer "Julie
said in public false allegations, we'll made a lawsuit against her"...

I mean Julie put tons of "bad" on top of a company without any proof (about
sexism) and she exasperate (seeing the report) mostly everything.

Should this be allowed to do and be unpunished?

~~~
DAddYE
To add more:
[https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/459358875213238272](https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/459358875213238272)

------
alexcason
I'm not sure what more GitHub can do that isn't outlined in this post.

It would be good to hear from people with perspective what they think the next
steps should be.

------
b0nz
Woman-on-woman bullying is a big issue in the tech community. My closest
friend at company I work at now is a female developer and she is constantly
being bullied by the women on our design team. A lot of women who work in tech
are threatened by female developers, especially when they are straight and
attractive.

If you guys want to frame this issue in terms of gender that's what you should
be talking about.

------
GFK_of_xmaspast
"Furthermore, there was no information found to support Julie’s allegation
that the engineer maliciously deleted her code. The commit history, push log,
and all issues and pull requests involving Julie and the accused engineer were
reviewed"

isn't one of the whole things about git as a VCS the ability to re-write its
history?

~~~
Zarel
History rewrites must be force-pushed and force-pulled, which would have been
very conspicuous to everyone who had a checkout of the repository in question.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
Do we know (a) how many people would have updated their copy after her commit
and before his revision and (b) how many of those people don't just
automatically do a forced pull when necessary?

------
duncan_bayne
If I were one of the developers Horvath named, I'd be lawyering up right now,
and considering a libel suit.

------
cheerio
Based on the first two paragraphs of the "independent" investigator website,
[http://www.ryaa.com/](http://www.ryaa.com/) the "independent" investigator
seems to be biased in favor of the company. It could be argued that github is
using their CEO as a scapegoat in order to avoid having to confront a possibly
sexist internal culture. I wish companies and individuals were not afraid to
address their sexist cultures or thoughts. Living in post modern society, it's
almost impossible not to have a sexist thought - it's what we do with these
thoughts that matters. I look forward to seeing the new initiatives github
will be launching, and hope the initiatives will bring about real change in
company culture, and cause people to question their beliefs. Meanwhile, I'm
trying to decide if I want to switch to a different company to host my code.
Any ideas?

------
b0nz
This basically boils down to one woman (Teresa Preston-Werner) bullying
another woman (JAH). So can someone please explain to me why all of the
feminists are turning this into a "women being victimized by men" thing?

------
sremani
This is not a case of sexism. This is good case of nepotism and extra-
organizational power. There are more than one guilty party here.

It is not sexism if you are harassed by the person of your own gender.

------
primitivesuave
Just out of curiosity, did anyone reduce or end a paid plan with GitHub over
this controversy?

~~~
nilved
I did move to a self-hosted git server
([http://git.devlinzed.com](http://git.devlinzed.com)) for a number of
reasons. This is one, but the server: costs less to run than the smallest paid
GitHub account; supports unlimited private repositories at sizes up to 20GB;
has never ever went down; is considerably faster (due to geography and SSD);
and doesn't allow GitHub to harvest information about who (including myself)
is using my code.

Realistically, whether you're offended by GitHub's sexism or data collection
policies or not, it doesn't make any sense to use them strictly from a
pragmatic cost-to-benefit perspective. They simply charge far too much for far
too little.

~~~
primitivesuave
I think one big redeeming factor for GitHub is the extensive and robust API.
It's very easy to hack together a custom version controlled app or system
using GitHub as the backend.

~~~
nilved
It's true that GitHub has a great API, but when you run your own server and
have access to the running software and file system you get the best API for
working on git repos there is: git. Or perhaps libgit2 and your favourite
language's bindings.

Subjectively, I haven't found GitHub's API to be great to work with, but this
is because they use OAuth and OAuth is just needlessly complicated and
inconvenient.

------
math0ne
I don't understand how so many people are claiming that #1 had nothing to do
with sexism. The whole thing was about a founders wife harassing an employee
because of suspected infidelity.

This is NOT something that would happen to man and had EVERYTHING to do with
the fact that she's a woman.

~~~
b0nz
This actually reenforces what I said in my unpopular comment. Only two women
would have such an issue:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7668733](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7668733)

------
topac
Best place to work?

------
andykmaguire
Feels directionally correct.

------
SnakeDoc
It's amazing to see how many people here are commenting and voting on emotion.

The facts are:

1) We have an ex-employee who is very disgruntled.

2) Said employee has laid some serious allegations regarding genderism

3) No allegation is provable nor has been proven

4) Other female employees interviewed have countered the allegations

5) Independent audit found no proof whatsoever, yet commented that some things
in the company could use improvement (as with all companies, especially large
ones)

This is not a sexism issue here guys. It's a typical case of an upset ex-
employee -- it happens all the time, just with much less media.

Other Github employees even said she was really not good at her work,
difficult to work with, didn't except criticisms, etc.

~~~
SolarNet
Independent auditor hired by the company being audited, instead of hyping her
record, they should have provided evidence of it. I'm not saying the auditor
wasn't independent, just that I don't trust the claim coming from the company
that paid for it and is presenting the view.

~~~
cantankerous
With respectable auditors, independence is what you're paying for. Auditors
that are found out not to be independent quickly go up in smoke. Just ask
anybody who worked at Arthur Andersen about the Enron scandal.

~~~
Rantenki
Arthur Anderson was founded in 1913, so they were around for quite some time
before they "went up in smoke". Anderson started auditing in the early 90s,
and apparently was ignoring serious red flags from the very beginning. I guess
auditors can get away with biased/dependent behavior for a long time.

~~~
cantankerous
And yet up in smoke they went. Here today, gone tomorrow.

~~~
Rantenki
Yes, but they lasted for a nearly a century first. While corrupt auditors will
fail _eventually_, it isn't realistic to expect auditors to all be honest
because they bad behavior will kill them in the long run. They can do a lot of
damage in the short term before they fall apart.

It'll be interesting to see how this situation shakes out for this auditor,
but I suspect they'll keep ticking along just fine.

------
b0nz
I saw this in the comments on the tech crunch story about JAH. It's priceless:

Please change the title of the article from: "Julie Ann Horvath Describes
Sexism And Intimidation Behind Her GitHub Exit", to "Julie Ann Horvath
Describes Harassment From The Founders Wife, The Founder, And Has A Problem
With Hula Hoops (For Some Reason)"

------
SnakeDoc
I'm rather disappointed in GitHub allowing one of their founders and top
executives to be run out of town over a wrongful controversy contrived by a
disgruntled ex-employee with a bone to pick.

~~~
dougmccune
And what about this part?

"GitHub’s CEO acted inappropriately, including confrontational conduct,
disregard of workplace complaints, insensitivity to the impact of his spouse's
presence in the workplace, and failure to enforce an agreement that his spouse
should not work in the office. There were also issues surrounding the
solicitation of GitHub employees for non-GitHub business and the inappropriate
handling of employee concerns regarding those solicitations."

If that described the CEO of my company I'd want him out too. And that's
GitHub's own words.

------
b0nz
Based on the results of the investigation, it seems the sexual harassment /
gender-discrimination allegations are bogus. What we are left with is a female
employee who was systematically mistreated by the CEO's wife, and a CEO who
was unable or unwilling to put a stop to it.

So what can we learn from this apart from the obvious deficiencies of said CEO
and said CEO's wife?

1\. Nothing causes more trouble at a company than two women who don't get
along. I'm sorry to say this, and I know it's politically incorrect, but women
are catty and it's very difficult to get women to work together without all
sorts of drama.

2\. Women in tech frequently play the gender card when their jobs don't work
out. Whatever the reason for their resignation or termination, they are highly
likely to perceive that their gender was a major factor in the outcome.

------
ThomPete
Big kudos for doing this but I feel like they are ripping up a wound that was
healing just fine.

I mean.

Most people already forgot this.

The people who want to make this a bigger issue than it is not going to be
convinced.

I think most people didn't think they needed to explain more than they already
had.

~~~
Aqueous
I think this is an example of Wanstrath kow-towing to a small, outspoken
subset of GitHub's employees to avoid bad PR. This has happened before. At
some point a group of GitHub employees were offended by a rug that said
something to the effect of "United Meritocracy of GitHub." This rug strikes me
as being not at all divisive - not even subtextually, not even under an
extremely charitable reading of the argument. I'm very familiar with knee-jerk
reactions of this kind - I went to an extremely politically liberal, East
Coast university that reacted to every conceivable slight with a blizzard of
sometimes phony outrage, the kind that makes even people who agree with them
(such as myself) completely unsympathetic to their argument.

Interestingly, the "divisiveness" of this rug was apparently turned into an
issue by none other than Julie Ann Horvath.

([http://www.businessinsider.com/githubs-ceo-ditches-
meritocra...](http://www.businessinsider.com/githubs-ceo-ditches-meritocracy-
rug-2014-1))

Now I absolutely think that Preston-Werner's wife and Preston-Werner himself
acted extremely inappropriataly towards Horvath. But, since it appears that
Horvath's other claims do not seem to have a basis, she has yet again taken a
situation where she had a legitimate point to make and completely blew it out
of proportion.

Wanstrath will learn eventually that he sometimes just has to say no more.
There are more important goals for his organization to accomplish than to be
accommodating to every single grievance.

~~~
gruntmaster9000
Negative reaction to “meritocracy” is hardly knee-jerk. In fact, the word was
coined as criticism of the concept:
[http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment)

~~~
Aqueous
Then the rug is a declaration of values. The US has often failed to live up to
its own founding values - should we shred the preamble and the declaration of
independence? No - those two documents have shaped US history, mostly because
we're more and more trying to live up to them.

It just seems awfully silly. The legitimate point here - that there should be
more female engineers - seems a) not specific to GitHub and b) to be lost
under a shroud of phony outrage over a rug.

~~~
gruntmaster9000
Missing the point. Meritocracy is not something to aspire to. In practice it
masks and reinforces power structures, increasing inequality:

> The main finding is consistent across the three studies: when an
> organization is explicitly presented as meritocratic, individuals in
> managerial positions favor a male employee over an equally qualified female
> employee by awarding him a larger monetary reward.

From:
[http://asq.sagepub.com/content/55/4/543.short](http://asq.sagepub.com/content/55/4/543.short)

Which was recognized by Chris Wanstrath when they removed it:

> @defunkt: We thought ‘meritocracy’ was a neat way to think of open source
> but now see the problems with it. Words matter. We’re getting a new rug.

[https://twitter.com/defunkt/status/426104782894284800](https://twitter.com/defunkt/status/426104782894284800)

~~~
Aqueous
The problem wasn't the meritocracy it was the failing to live up to it.
Meritocracy is absolutely something we should aspire to. In these examples the
men who were paying other men more were simply not being meritocratic - if
they were, then they would have hired/given raises to just as many equally
qualified women as they did men.

That calling something a meritocracy when it isn't may have a paradoxical
effect may be true. But I'm not sure it warrants getting rid of meritocracy as
the guiding principle of an organization. We should just be doing a better job
of being meritocratic.

~~~
dreamfactory2
Have you actually read the linked article by the man who invented the term?
It's not about meritocracy done badly, it's about it being a destabilizing
force when done well.

~~~
Aqueous
Yes, and I think that he's mistaken.

The meritocrats - the 'beneficiaries of nepotism' in the article - aren't
actually where they are (wholly) because of merit. It's because they were born
into a social structure where they were already beneficiaries of wealth and
privilege, and were able to accrue various 'merit badges' because of this
wealth and privilege. But this isn't actually meritocracy.

What I'm saying is that the system that the author claims to be meritocratic
actually isn't - if it were, starting with our early childhood education
system, it would be promoting people based on talent and aptitude and not
keeping them down because they were born into the wrong class.

And this is what I'm saying actually constitutes meritocracy. Do I think we
should be advancing people simply _because_ they are poor? I do not. Similarly
I do not think we should be advancing people simply because they are already
rich. I think we should be giving those who have been historically denied
these opportunities the same opportunities to advance as we do to everyone
else, elevating them rather than diminishing others. That to me would
represent an actual 'meritocracy', not the false version that the coiner of
the term is criticizing.

~~~
dreamfactory2
You do realise the author coined the term 'meritocracy' in the first place and
therefore gets to decide what it constitutes? I think you have the wrong end
of the stick in any case as he contrasts it with class and nepotism and finds
it an even worse form of government. I suspect his definition isn't far off
yours or mine: "merit is equated with intelligence-plus-effort, its possessors
are identified at an early age and selected for appropriate intensive
education, and there is an obsession with quantification, test-scoring, and
qualifications." That's precisely why his critique of the arrogance and
complacency this elitism leads to is interesting and not so easily dismissed.
He thinks that a system where "every selection of one is a rejection of many"
is overall a net loss.

~~~
Aqueous
I did misread the nepotism part - but he is mistaken about the pitfalls of a
meritocratic society. While I do agree with his idea that the values of
standardized, mass education that functions like a sieve are too narrow - and
that being branded a failure too early can leave one unemployed for life. But
on the whole that is becoming rarer, not more common. We - as well as Britain
- have a system of public and private education that lasts until an individual
is aged 18 - 22 years. We at least to some degree invest in our youths and
give them many chances to succeed. And yes, it is far from perfect - but it is
also still far from a true meritocracy, which functioning perfectly would find
and cultivate talents from all individuals and allocate them to a task suited
for them, and would give every student similar opportunities to discover and
cultivate their own talents.

I just don't see what a better alternative to this perfect meritocracy would
be. I don't see any alternative proposed. I don't see a better way to allocate
labor. You choose people for positions that are well suited to those
positions. How else would we have it? How else would we
build/accomplish/organize anything?

A selection of one is a rejection of many. Likewise, choosing to fulfill a
single duty means choosing not to perform all other duties. Should we do
nothing? Should we hire no one? In the end I think this critique of
meritocracy collapses to Marxism or some form of communitarianism - a nice
idea in principle, but a failure in practice. To even remotely be able to
accomplish the same kind of technological and societal progress that a true
meritocracy is capable of you need to make decisions about who is and who
isn't suited to particular functions.

So this seems like less a criticism of meritocracy than a criticism of the
economic inequality that necessarily emerges in a society where individuals
are different from each other.

Also, I somewhat disagree with the idea that a coiner of a term gets to decide
its meaning in perpetuity. Language changes and terms get repurposed and given
new connotations

~~~
gruntmaster9000
(My other reply is dead, apparently?)

The point is we can’t be truly meritocratic. It’s a utopic ideal that doesn’t
hold up in the real world. Those who are deciding what merit is are the ones
who already have power. Also, there are many barriers to entry before supposed
meritocratic judging can even take place. The goal isn’t to completely abandon
the idea of judging people based on their accomplishments, but to recognize
that the supposed ideal of meritocracy is a harmful fantasy, and to think more
critically and about how we evaluate people.

Selenda Deckelmann’s on meritocracy in the Postgres community:

“[…] in a truly meritocratic organization, privilege wouldn’t matter. But the
truth is, not everyone can join the Postgres project. […] So, ending the
pursuit of a mythical meritocracy doesn’t mean that we start accepting code
which doesn’t meet high standards, or that all of the sudden we’re going to
include more code from people in the bottom 1% of the world in terms of
salary. It means that we take a look at different aspects of our project and
see what is within our means to open up and make accessible to people who
aren’t exactly like us.” — [http://www.chesnok.com/daily/2011/03/30/where-
meritocracy-fa...](http://www.chesnok.com/daily/2011/03/30/where-meritocracy-
fails/)

Everything else here is very much worth reading:
[http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy)

------
return0
Definitely firing was the right thing to do here. I mean, it's unacceptable, a
CEO acting like an asshole, that's totally unheard of. There's no room for
reproval or a 'three strikes' policy here, companies should immediately fire
their founders for the pleasure of the audience. It shows character, morals
and strength of leadership, which inevitably lead to robust success.

------
dav-id
When you've dug yourself into a hole you should stop digging.

~~~
epochwolf
Could you elaborate on how this is making the situation worse rather than
better?

~~~
oomkiller
Continued attention in the media, I'm guessing. While this issue seems to have
died down mostly (still going on Twitter a bit), it's important to patch this
up properly so it doesn't affect recruiting talent.

~~~
icelancer
And god forbid let's just avoid doing the right thing because the fervor is
dying down.

Good on GitHub for updating.

