6 ms·

Maybe she actually could've read the text and figured it out herself before sending out the note? Just firing off a warning based on a simple text match seems

by pille 10y ago

Maybe she actually could've read the text and figured it out herself before sending out the note? Just firing off a warning based on a simple text match seems high-handed and/or incompetent enough to consider leaving.

matthewmacleod 10y ago
I actually assumed that this message was automated – "We found on objectionable word in your project, please don't use it." It just seems that this problems is remarkably easily solved with a simple "We are using a technical term correctly, maybe you should consider adjusting your automated emails." I do get the impression that people generally seem to be all to eager to take offence, and it strikes me as a bit ironic to flounce off in a huff as a result of a badly-judged automated process!
- duaneb 10y ago
  > I actually assumed that this message was automated – "We found on objectionable word in your project, please don't use it." How is this any better?
  - vonklaus 10y ago
    I find it worse. Github provides a great service and certainly has provided an incalculable value to os, but at a project level, it doesnt provide nearly enough value to dictate word choice, etiquette or style. Yes, the service is free, but github needs high caliber os projects more than they need it. It dosnt even matter who has an edge, automating spam at a user who says a naughty word is silly. Idk, i dont understand why they would even care. Unless it reached a very intolerable bar, i dont think this is necessary
cloverich 10y ago
Just to be clear, you're saying: "If large company x hires a single incompetent person, that is a good reason to never deal with said company again." I think that's the parents interpretation of OP and hence the "seems like a disproportionate response." (I agree it was absurd to flag the content).
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Absurd being the key word. This isn't a simple misunderstanding we're talking about, it's a company employee using company time and resources (i.e. sanctioned by the larger company) for something that can charitably be described as misguided. It raises questions about the internal company culture, their commitment to pragmatism (doubly important for a source code hosting site), and their priorities. Any developer could have told this person that a string match does not equal a linguistic match. Small signals matter; they're usually all you get out of large orgs.
- UseStrict 10y ago
  When there are numerous alternatives to GitHub why would I continue to use them? Clearly they were not putting the time and effort in to both train their employee and review the content (simply reading the sentence would give context), why bother dealing with them? Also why as a code hosting service would they be getting involved with the politics of the content of projects they host?
- pille 10y ago
  That's oversimplification. Even if it is just her own personal incompetence, if GitHub just hired her and let her loose as some kind of independent repo ombudsman to scold users, then yeah, that's a terrible management decision that warrants reconsidering your relationship with them.
  - squeaky-clean 10y ago
    We don't even know the whole story. The "woman" who sent the note is most likely just be an automated script.
    - zo1 10y ago
      Then apply the above-mentioned logic to the person/company that endorsed/approved said automated script.
    - alexbanks 10y ago
      The point is the same though. Resting a project's livelihood on a company that employed obviously incompetent process/humans/scripts is a risky move, and removing that livelihood from that company makes total sense.
tedmiston 10y ago
Presumably it was an automated message.
- pille 10y ago
  Someone had to design that automation. And it sounds like the message was at least made to look like it came from a person.
  - explorigin 10y ago
    Go read up on Github user: CoralineAda [1][2] Then consider that GitHub hired her. I would not be surprised if the this automated script and her employment were directly related. [1] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/954 https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/954 [2] https://github.com/CoralineAda?tab=activity https://github.com/CoralineAda?tab=activity
    - zeveb 10y ago
      > Then consider that GitHub hired her. I'm not terribly surprised. GitHub is, after all, a company which changed its logo to celebrate a highly political U.S. Supreme Court decision and which has had issues with left-wing racism (http://www.businessinsider.com/github-the-full-inside-story-2016-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/github-the-full-inside-story-...).
    - duaneb 10y ago
      I really don't want this to be a witch hunt (not seeing that here, just wary of pointing out individuals)—this is exactly the type of thing a business should take responsibility for as a whole. This was a process failure, IMHO.
      - pille 10y ago
        Exactly. The point of my comment was just that automation is no excuse for this kind of thing. For me it's still about the organization, and singling out individuals is about as productive as yelling at customer support on the phone.

by pille 10y ago

matthewmacleod 10y ago

I actually assumed that this message was automated – "We found on objectionable word in your project, please don't use it." It just seems that this problems is remarkably easily solved with a simple "We are using a technical term correctly, maybe you should consider adjusting your automated emails." I do get the impression that people generally seem to be all to eager to take offence, and it strikes me as a bit ironic to flounce off in a huff as a result of a badly-judged automated process!

duaneb 10y ago
> I actually assumed that this message was automated – "We found on objectionable word in your project, please don't use it." How is this any better?
- vonklaus 10y ago
  I find it worse. Github provides a great service and certainly has provided an incalculable value to os, but at a project level, it doesnt provide nearly enough value to dictate word choice, etiquette or style. Yes, the service is free, but github needs high caliber os projects more than they need it. It dosnt even matter who has an edge, automating spam at a user who says a naughty word is silly. Idk, i dont understand why they would even care. Unless it reached a very intolerable bar, i dont think this is necessary

cloverich 10y ago

Just to be clear, you're saying: "If large company x hires a single incompetent person, that is a good reason to never deal with said company again." I think that's the parents interpretation of OP and hence the "seems like a disproportionate response." (I agree it was absurd to flag the content).

Karunamon 10y ago
Absurd being the key word. This isn't a simple misunderstanding we're talking about, it's a company employee using company time and resources (i.e. sanctioned by the larger company) for something that can charitably be described as misguided. It raises questions about the internal company culture, their commitment to pragmatism (doubly important for a source code hosting site), and their priorities. Any developer could have told this person that a string match does not equal a linguistic match. Small signals matter; they're usually all you get out of large orgs.
UseStrict 10y ago
When there are numerous alternatives to GitHub why would I continue to use them? Clearly they were not putting the time and effort in to both train their employee and review the content (simply reading the sentence would give context), why bother dealing with them? Also why as a code hosting service would they be getting involved with the politics of the content of projects they host?
pille 10y ago
That's oversimplification. Even if it is just her own personal incompetence, if GitHub just hired her and let her loose as some kind of independent repo ombudsman to scold users, then yeah, that's a terrible management decision that warrants reconsidering your relationship with them.
- squeaky-clean 10y ago
  We don't even know the whole story. The "woman" who sent the note is most likely just be an automated script.
  - zo1 10y ago
    Then apply the above-mentioned logic to the person/company that endorsed/approved said automated script.
  - alexbanks 10y ago
    The point is the same though. Resting a project's livelihood on a company that employed obviously incompetent process/humans/scripts is a risky move, and removing that livelihood from that company makes total sense.

tedmiston 10y ago

Presumably it was an automated message.

pille 10y ago
Someone had to design that automation. And it sounds like the message was at least made to look like it came from a person.
- explorigin 10y ago
  Go read up on Github user: CoralineAda [1][2] Then consider that GitHub hired her. I would not be surprised if the this automated script and her employment were directly related. [1] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/954 https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/954 [2] https://github.com/CoralineAda?tab=activity https://github.com/CoralineAda?tab=activity
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > Then consider that GitHub hired her. I'm not terribly surprised. GitHub is, after all, a company which changed its logo to celebrate a highly political U.S. Supreme Court decision and which has had issues with left-wing racism (http://www.businessinsider.com/github-the-full-inside-story-2016-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/github-the-full-inside-story-...).
  - duaneb 10y ago
    I really don't want this to be a witch hunt (not seeing that here, just wary of pointing out individuals)—this is exactly the type of thing a business should take responsibility for as a whole. This was a process failure, IMHO.
    - pille 10y ago
      Exactly. The point of my comment was just that automation is no excuse for this kind of thing. For me it's still about the organization, and singling out individuals is about as productive as yelling at customer support on the phone.