65 ms·

Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

• minimaxir 13y ago
  This is the best possible response GitHub could have done given the circumstances.
  • _delirium 13y ago
    That was also my first reaction. I don't know enough about crisis-management-style PR to second-guess their response. I often have the suspicion that founders are not taking the best course of action, but this response seems to avoid the obvious pitfalls.
    • Bahamut 13y ago
      This was also my first reaction as well - the real question is how they followup this response, but this is the only correct move at this juncture.
      • phreanix 13y ago
        I think the follow up will be more critical, especially the public explanation. That will have the potential to either strengthen GH's credibility or destroy it.
        • bosch 13y ago
          Why should they give a public explanation for something that should've stayed internal in the first place? This should've stayed between the OP, GitHub and GH's HR team.
  • jitl 13y ago
    Exactly. This is what I needed to hear, as a 3rd-party fan of Github's product, who is concerned by Julie's allegations. I don't know who is in the wrong, and I want to know the truth, and I hope Github can solve these problems. This statement doesn't downplay; this statement doesn't evade, and that's what this situation warrants: a serious and sincere investigation.
  • benatkin 13y ago
    One thing he could have done better is to praise her contributions as a developer specifically or not call anything out specifically. One of her main complaints is having her pull requests reverted and Chris Wanstrath's post does nothing to support her in this matter.
• duncan_bayne 13y ago
  Awesome response from GitHub. Professional response, apologises and thanks the complainant rather than being defensive ... I think their new HR hire in January is already paying dividends ;)
  • MarkTee 13y ago
    Not PR, HR (i.e Human Resources). In other words, someone who should have been working to clean up this mess months ago.
    • duncan_bayne 13y ago
      Indeed, but it takes time to clean up a culture (if it's at all possible). This response suggests that their HR hire is doing his or her job well, at least now.
      • 001sky 13y ago
        This response suggests that ... Disagree. The situtation is highly ambiguous. HR is a game of "the best victories are wars not fought". And so in some regards, its too late. On the other-hand, if HR was on the right...they were "over-ruled" by more than one of CEO/founders/sr execs. This surely means this person has diminished capacity to act. If not due to competence, than due to "lack of formiddableness". Because it shouldn't take a public PR nightmare to convince (ie, show some leadership) that following HR101 is a good idea. It is only the rare edge case that this person was in perfect pitch (and ignored) yesterday and will be held in higher regard tomorrow. So, this is why things are not clear cut here for anyone.
    • fpgeek 13y ago
      Absent a time machine, how could a hire in January have been working to clean up this mess "months ago"? Blame the CEO and the rest of the management team for not hiring a good HR person sooner if you want, but I don't see how you fault the person who just walked into this mess. Unless you're blaming them for not seeing the mess or walking into it with their eyes open. To me, that seems counterproductive. Having people with the appropriate skills take on the difficult work of improving these cultures is part of how things get better.
• skywhopper 13y ago
  It's good to see this statement out of Github. The general tone and specifically the mention of the founder's wife in this post gives a huge amount of credence to Julie's claims. I hope Github follows through on this with as much sincerity and determination as this post implies.
  • joshbert 13y ago
    I agree that the statement is good. I only wish they'd addressed the concerns that were raised regarding them having access to/messing with private repos.
    • chris11 13y ago
      I didn't quite read the statement as saying the founder's wife had access to private repos. I just read it as saying that the founder's wife claimed to have access to private company communication, specifically chat logs only intended for github employees. But a statement clearing the concerns up would be nice.
      • watson 13y ago
        You're right - the TechCrunch article didn't mention access to private repos - only private employee chatrooms. But the question was raised here on HN, asking if she did have access to private employee chatrooms what else might she or others have access to? If the security is lax in one area, one might assume it's lax in others as well. But it's just speculation - but it has merit non the less [edit: spelling]
        • jen_h 13y ago
          There's no way to know unless someone comes out and says it explicitly, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that the aforementioned "spies" emailed specific chat logs to her. In a toxic environment, that kind of stuff gets passed around willy-nilly. That's the first conclusion I jumped to after reading the TechCrunch article, anyway.
      • 13y ago
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  • cincinnatus 13y ago
    Probably couldn't say til they finish looking into the details and some dust settles. Otherwise, solid apology, good on them.
  • catmanjan 13y ago
    True, now that you point it out it does seem like legalese. I think if he said "should" it would imply fault, which would be a premature stance for him at this point.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• macspoofing 13y ago
  Usually there are two sides of the story, but the fact that a non-employee (wife of co-founder) exercised so much power and meddled in internal office politics in the way that she did, it was hard to see how GitHub could even claim a reasonable stance. They screwed this up big time. This is a good response.
  • atomaka 13y ago
    Not usually...ALWAYS. There is another side here. Github has just realized they have nothing to gain by defending.
    • stfp 13y ago
      Off topic, but there is not always "two sides". There is a tendency to try to frame and reduce everything to binary questions... but the world is just not binary.
      • jamesaguilar 13y ago
        To put it another way, there may be two sides (or N sides), but some sides' perspective are often more worthy than others. Not to Godwin the thread, but, yeah. Both sides' perspectives are not always equally valid. (I dutifully acknowledge that the offenses are not the same magnitude, and all the caveats that go with referencing The Big G.)
        • SolarNet 13y ago
          Like the nature of earth: * General scientific opinion (it's generally roundish). * Religious doctrine (it's flat, centre of universe, on the back of a turtle). * And then this person: http://www.timecube.com/ http://www.timecube.com/ Point is, only one of these sides is reasonable.
      • Fomite 13y ago
        There are always two sides. But people who use "two sides" tend to overlook that one of them may very well be "Yeah, we failed hard on this one".
• leccine 13y ago
  Well Julie's story stinks. Let me just quote the last thigs she wrote and work backwards from that. "Two women, one of whom I work with and adore, and a friend of hers were hula hooping to some music. I didn’t have a problem with this. What I did have a problem with is the line of men sitting on one bench facing the hoopers and gawking at them. It looked like something out of a strip club. When I brought this up to male coworkers, they didn’t see a problem with it. But for me it felt unsafe and to be honest, really embarrassing. That was the moment I decided to finally leave GitHub." For me, two adult individual can do whatever the hack they want to do, if it is legal and they are both consent of doing it. Julie seems like really pissed that other people just can have fun the way she does not like. This sounds like a huge frustration in her towards others with different standards. This last event seems like triggered her outrage, and that is also a sign that she might exaggerate what was really going in Github. Don't get me wrong, as part of a small minority I totally understand what oppression means at a workplace, but these accusations seem a bit irrational.
  • sergiotapia 13y ago
    >Julie seems like really pissed that other people just can have fun the way she does not like. Exactly - who's she to determine what is 'over the line'? Nobody likes a busybodies .
  • roflc0ptic 13y ago
    So many words without contributing anything to the discussion. "These accusations seem a bit irrational." What are you even talking about they are factual coupled with her interpretations. This post hints strongly that github is disputing neither. Your read is tortured.
    • leccine 13y ago
      Focus on the story and the discussion and not on me please.
    • microjesus 13y ago
      His (or hers?) comment was based on her story, not on the HR reactionary piece referenced here. Your read is skewed and angry.
• peterjancelis 13y ago
  They are lucky it's not the CEO-founder. Easier to put a non-CEO on leave than a CEO I imagine.
  • slm_HN 13y ago
    Sounds like you're so desperate to out the guy that you have to make a weird, nonsensical post. If you really want to out him that badly just man up an post his name rather than trying to weasel around with "Easier to put a president on leave than a CEO".
    • peterjancelis 13y ago
      Here, I edited my post so I don't hurt your peculiar sensitivities. I wasn't outing anyone, the founder who shall not be named is the only married one as plenty of people pointed out from the start. Also, for context to the original comment, the founder we are discussing here used to be CEO but switched roles a while back.
      • vulf 13y ago
        PJ Hyett has been married for many years: https://twitter.com/pjhyett/status/89064336454201346 https://twitter.com/pjhyett/status/89064336454201346
        • peterjancelis 13y ago
          I stand corrected.
    • deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  • jamesrom 13y ago
    Allegedly, Tom Preston-Werner. FTFY.
  • Tobu 13y ago
    They have swapped hats two months ago (acknowledging an earlier change): https://github.com/blog/1761-new-year-new-ceo-for-github https://github.com/blog/1761-new-year-new-ceo-for-github I'm not terribly clear on US company governance and GitHub is atypical, so mojombo's new role is a bit fuzzy to me.
• leothekim 13y ago
  Now, what does "put on leave" mean? Is that "suspended with pay"? "Stay low until the dust settles"? Or, "terminated after further review"?
  • cpayne 13y ago
    It means just that! Github have a very fine line to walk. They don't have traditional shareholders to make happy. At the end of the day, all they have is their brand to protect. Ask Microsoft how important their brand is after releasing Windows ME. Or Blackberry just after the iPhone came out. Clearly something has happened, but they have to not only find out what happened, but to also be transparent and show that they are trying to find out what happened. I think its the best response you can expect given the circumstances.
    • greenyoda 13y ago
      "At the end of the day, all they have is their brand to protect." They also need to protect their company from a potential lawsuit.
      • vpeters25 13y ago
        Bingo!, the lawsuit is coming regardless, Horvath made sure to leave enough of a paper trail for it. I think this whole situation looks like a misunderstanding snowballing into a tsunami. Founder's wife takes her for drinks, gets drunk, talks of her ass and says inappropriate stuff. I would just chalk it to drunkenness and forget the whole episode. It would've ended right there.
        • dobbsbob 13y ago
          Guaranteed lawyers have already contacted her after hearing about this assuring her she has a big settlement waiting, which she probably does. Github will just want to make this go away and prevent her from shit talking the brand anymore and money is the answer
      • 13y ago
• jw2013 13y ago
  "the relevant founder has been put on leave... The founder’s wife... will no longer be permitted in the office." Almost exactly what I expected. As the startup grows larger (200+ employees now for Github?) it's not uncommon to have some cultural setback. +1 for Github trying to fix it asap, but still Chris Wanstrath did not mention how are they exactly going to fix the culture. Putting founder on leave is by no means panacea. The behavior on that one founder is very likely not the cause for the wrong culture, but just the side effect. So more specific plans INSIDE the company, please? (well, actually I think fixing the culture can't be done by any plan, but it must be done by example of founders/high-level executives.)
  • leccine 13y ago
    What do you think needed to be fixed? You are assuming that everything Julie states is right...
    • jw2013 13y ago
      I am not assuming everything Julie states is right. For statement "the culture of Github needs some fix" to be true, it only needs only some of Julie's statements to be true. And looks like from Chris's statement, that is true (otherwise why did they "punish" founder & his wife).
      • leccine 13y ago
        They did not punish anybody. Not letting a non-employee into their offices does not qualify as punishment. Put on leave for a president also not. It is more to the media and wait to let the dust settle. The culture of Github needs some fix can be interpreted many ways it does not say anything concrete. This is all politics. :)
      • ephemeralgomi 13y ago
        They didn't punish anyone yet.
  • carlosdp 13y ago
    It's been like a day (over a weekend), probably not enough time to put together such a plan...
• sergiotapia 13y ago
  Him mentioning the cofounder's wife immediately gives credibility to Julie's claims! I hope she get's paid! The workplace should be professional, not a schoolyard.
  • vacri 13y ago
    I don't recall anyone having a spouse when I was playing in schoolyards.
  • corin_ 13y ago
    It only gives credibility to the claim that the wife had been into the office, nothing more than that.
• chromejs10 13y ago
  It's really sad for this to have happened, but respect to Chris Wanstrath for his classy and sincere apology.
• meistro 13y ago
  This is leadership. Executive leadership at other tech companies should take note.
  • tatalegma 13y ago
    To respond only after the issue was brought public? No, that is no leadership. It's the best possible response he could give under the present circumstances, but on the flipside, he had no choice but to make this statement. I wouldn't be surprised if it was crafted for him by a PR person or firm.
    • hiddentao 13y ago
      I'm guessing that at the time (whilst the issue was still internal) they didn't think what was happening was a big enough deal. As a result they're now having to perform damage control.
• laureny 13y ago
  > We know we have to take action and have begun a full investigation. While that’s ongoing, and effective immediately, the relevant founder has been put on leave, as has the referenced GitHub engineer. Pretty much a full admission that everything that Julie said is true. This is great news, but putting these people on leave seems to be too nice. It's clear that these two people obey ethics that are in direct oppposition to the healthy growth of the company. Surely they don't want them back? > The founder’s wife discussed in the media reports has never had hiring or firing power at GitHub and will no longer be permitted in the office. Why did it take a Techcrunch article to reach this decision? Didn't anyone at Github see anything wrong with that founder's wife doing what she did, according to Julie's statement? > GitHub has grown incredibly fast over the past two years, bringing a new set of challenges. Nearly a year ago we began a search for an experienced HR Lead and that person came on board in January 2014 Doesn't appear so. They did get an HR person, but an experienced one? Not a chance. No experienced HR person would have let any of that get as far as it got. That HR person should probably be put on leave or be fired as well. > Chris Wanstrath > > CEO & Co-Founder This narrows down the choices: the "founder" who is the cause for all this drama is either PJ Hyett or Tom Preston-Werner.
  • flylib 13y ago
    > Doesn't appear so. They did get an HR person, but an experienced one? Not a chance. No experienced HR person would have let any of that get as far as it got. That HR person should probably be put on leave or be fired as well. > that person came on board in January 2014 most of the things that had happened predated the HR person coming on, but you do have a point, the wife thing should of stopped since January
    • nfoz 13y ago
      > should of stopped should have stopped
      • collypops 13y ago
        Thank god you're here. This topic is saddening enough without people making grammar errors too.
• almightygod 13y ago
  This whole incident is sad. It's incredibly sad for Julie, for everyone at GitHub, for the founders, and for the alleged "crazy" founder wife who was banned from a company she probably sacrificed a lot for
  • pekk 13y ago
    I'm surprised nobody sees sexism in the way that the wife has been stigmatized.
    • comex 13y ago
      I think it would be somewhat different if she were an actual employee.
      • pekk 13y ago
        So it's not sexism as long as it is against a non-employee? What kind of sense does that make?
        • fpgeek 13y ago
          One way or another, an employee has to be part of the workplace - it's their job. An non-employee doesn't have to be there, so access to the workplace is a privilege (and one that not all employers permit). When a non-employee misuses that privilege (e.g. by getting the the way of employees doing their work), it can and should be revoked. Moreover, making mistakes in the context of misusing a privilege can and should carry greater stigma than making those same mistakes in some other contexts.
    • joshyeager 13y ago
      I think that the wife's actions would have been even less acceptable if she were male. The stigma is caused by the repeated unprofessional actions she did, and made worse by the fact that she was not even an employee.
      • 13y ago
• logicchains 13y ago
  If Horvath's characterisations of the founder's wife are correct, then she seems somewhat similar in temperament to Lady McBeth. It's easy to see why his work is considered timeless.
• stevenelliottjr 13y ago
  Pretty ridiculous, I'm sure she'll land on her feet but these startup cultures are a disaster. Hula hoops? No clear management of any kind? I'm all for freedom of expression and all that but try and act like an adult for once in your life and put the hula hoops down.
  • dkersten 13y ago
    What is wrong with hula hoops? I have (adult) friends who dance for fun, play with hula hoops, play with poi balls and lots of other things. There is nothing wrong with these things. No clear management of any kind is a big problem, but the rest of what you say is, as you put it, pretty ridiculous.
    • Pacabel 13y ago
      Nobody has suggested there's anything wrong with playing with hula hoops, even when it's adults doing it. It just doesn't seem like something that should be done at work, or at work-related events.
  • dobbsbob 13y ago
    This place sounds like highschool. People bored so music and hula hoops, coworkers dating, a principals office instead of managers, passive aggressive bullshit. I go to work, code, learn, improve and gtfo. No office parties, no cliques of bros, no boss trying to be my friend, no team events or forced 'fun'. Just professional work and money which is the only reason I'm there.
    • Pacabel 13y ago
      I really don't know what exactly it is, but there's something about the Ruby community that seems to draw in immaturity, and them amplify it. This pervasive immaturity does tend to result in things going sour, and for some reason it always tends to happen in a very dramatic and public manner.
• trhway 13y ago
  as one if the most important corrective actions, Github needs to bring back cubicles or better even offices, so that a lot of the "increased collaboration and communication" between Julie and the founder's wife ( like when the wife would sit near Julie and stare at her) just wouldn't be able to happen. edit: another thing that would help - it is to have some older, like in the their 40s, people in the workforce. I mean it may be useful to have old farts like us, who've been through sterile no-harassment environment of BigCo's, and who would be able to spot inappropriate behavior even from a couple floors away, and whose mere presence would calm the hormones at least a couple notches down :)
  • Crito 13y ago
    Oh please, I've worked in open office spaces were being harassed by a founders wife could have never happened. The presence or absence of chest-high modular walls has nothing to do with this story.
• rodgerd 13y ago
  It's good to see a straight-up apology, not a mealy-mouthed "I'm sorry if our engineer's sexual harrassment offended you" type response. Of course, it would have been better if Julie had felt like she could have taken this up while she still worked there and got something done at the time.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • hueving 13y ago
    Re-read it. He was careful not to actually apologize for anything in particular. It's worth noting that they have not admitted to any 'sexism' or whatever other accusations are floating around.
    • deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  • sequoia 13y ago
    "It’s certain that there were things we could have done differently." heh... this doesn't read like a "straight-up apology" to me. It doesn't acknowledge even a whit of wrongdoing. Note also that Wanstrath says he "would like to personally apologize to Julie," [emphasis added], not that Github is apologizing or that he's apologizing on Github's behalf. I'm not saying "they should apologize and I know it" because I don't know it, I know practically nothing of the situation, but this is no "straight up apology."
• fmitchell0 13y ago
  i guess no one sees the irony that validation in their mind comes in the form of the co-founder 'owning up'. if he had been silent or refuted the statements (maybe on advice from their lawyers), would that undermine Julie's credibility? if so, why?
  • sp332 13y ago
    It's never a good idea to pass judgement when you've only heard one side of a dispute. I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's the case here. This is a general rule.
• att159 13y ago
  Who is the "relevant GitHub engineer"? The one Horvath rejected?
  • ww520 13y ago
    The one who sabotaged her work based on personal pettiness.
  • Throwadev 13y ago
    That makes total sense. Somehow I forgot about him, and assumed it was her partner. I was like "OK, i guess they have to boot everyone who was even remotely involved until they can sort it all out and decide on next steps." But no, your guess makes a lot more sense.
  • vpeters25 13y ago
    I don't think we will know unless this ends in some ugly lawsuit, but they can confirm the story by analysing multiple commit logs from same dude reverting Horvath's work.
• JeremyMorgan 13y ago
  Well that pretty much confirms what Julie said was true. Kudos to GitHub for not trying to sweep things under the rug.
  • edhebert 13y ago
    Well, it sounds like they tried to sweep things under the rug.
  • hueving 13y ago
    >Well that pretty much confirms what Julie said was true Except for anything regarding any sort of sexism.
  • ssorallen 13y ago
    > pretty much confirms The post only states that the founder's wife will no longer be permitted in the office. It neither confirms nor denies anything. This post is cleverly crafted but is not a confirmation of any of Horvath's claims.
  • railsdude 13y ago
    Except there's no rug [1] anymore, JAH made sure of that. [1] http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug
• duked 13y ago
  I wasn't aware of the whole story. Here is the link to better understand the context: http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes-sexism-and-intimidation-behind-her-github-exit/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes...
  • sp332 13y ago
    And the discussion, which is still on the front page https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7408055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7408055
• bdcravens 13y ago
  The founder’s wife discussed in the media reports has never had hiring or firing power at GitHub and will no longer be permitted in the office. The fact that she was married to someone who did have hiring or firing power and WAS permitted in the office means she DID have (defacto) hiring or firing power. I wonder what the ramifications are, legal-wise? Obviously the founder could be sued, especially if he was allowing someone who wasn't an employee to harass. I suspect A16Z will waste no time putting distance between themselves and the (allegedly) guilty founder. In the end, this wife's jealousy could end up costing her family 10s or 100s of millions of dollars.
  • steele 13y ago
    Let's just make sure not to call the wife bossy.
  • dmourati 13y ago
    Might want to tighten that logic up a bit. Plenty of founder's spouses are allowed in and have been allowed in our offices. None of them had any hiring or firing power.
    • unreal37 13y ago
      Except, if the allegation is true, the wife goes around to employees claiming she can fire people if she wants to.
  • jmspring 13y ago
    The largest issue, for myself, really was the lapse in HR policy specifically around the founder and the wife. It is a huge lapse in common sense on behalf of said founder and should not have come to pass. A smaller family run business, maybe I could see such policies happening (not necessarily right), but a venture backed company with a board and a trio of cofounders? Bad, bad form.
  • balloot 13y ago
    By your logic, hiring managers should not be allowed to be married, lest they give a non-employee "defacto" hiring power. Before we string up the cofounder's wife, let's actually let her and/or the cofounder defend themselves, OK? It's entirely possible Horvath is completely embellishing things and the cofounder's wife didn't do anything terribly out of line.
• h1karu 13y ago
  Julie was banging a co-worker so why is she acting surprised when drama happened ? I don't get it.
  • qdog 13y ago
    I work for a large, bureaucratic company. The only restrictions on dating (and we have a ton of HR rules) is about reports. As long as you neither of you report to each other or have any influence on position etc., corporate has no problem with dating. I can't imagine a startup caring unless you actually cause the drama, and this doesn't sound like that case. Grow up.
    • trhway 13y ago
      well, the founder's wife has some issue with Julia. The story sounds like a fight for a position of an alpha-female. That gives non-zero probability to the idea that either Julia's partner may have been of some interest to the wife, or Julia's behavior toward the founder looked like a challenge to the wife.
      • qdog 13y ago
        Possibly, but the story didn't mention any conflict over the person she is/was seeing. The founder's wife definitely seems to have a problem with Julie, but it isn't clear from the tech crunch article why that was originally.
    • h1karu 13y ago
      There's a huge difference between startups and a huge corporation!! think small teams. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done at all I'm just saying one should expect drama in the workplace after you decide to cross over that rubicon, especially in a software startup
  • xupybd 13y ago
    I don't think it's fair to point to her relationship as the cause of this. I also think that, referring to her relationship as "banging a co-worker", may be an example of the kind of behaviour that creates an uncomfortable atmosphere for women in I.T.
• wcummings 13y ago
  If what she said is half true, the engineer in question should absolutely be fired. I would fire him.
  • hueving 13y ago
    It's a good thing you aren't a manager. Which half is it that's good enough for termination? Reverting a commit, or what?
    • wcummings 13y ago
      A coworker showing up uninvited to her house and making an awkward and uninvited advance, or systematically reverting commits as vengeance. I made a vague statement, but I think "reverting a commit" is definitely minimizing what she claims happened
      • dekz 13y ago
        The only real issue GitHub can address here is harassment during work. I don't recall reading about an uninvited advance, so if this is something new you know about could you dump a citation here. I do recall a home visit which was 'awkward' and the offending party 'hesitated' to leave. That stuff happens, in and outside of work. Remember the parties here are emotionally invested and biased. We should not consider such details trivial, but they are considerably emotionally invested in this. The way it was phrased in the original article was he hesitated to leave. That's obviously up to the reader to interpret. Let's not dramatize that into an 'univited advance'.
        • querulous 13y ago
          what about showing up at someone's house and propositioning them is not an 'uninvited advance'?
      • watwut 13y ago
        Seriously? You would fire employee for making an awkward and advance? I can see firing person for reverting commits as vengeance. I can see firing person for harassing someone or if he was threatening. I can not see it reasonable to fire employee for asking another one on date once, even if it was awkward and unexpected. Maybe I'm weird, but I do not see it employers business to police relationships of their adult employees, as long as they do not cross the line described above.
• gdilla 13y ago
  That non-employee spouses are allowed on company property to the extent that the CEO has to acknowledge it (and put an end to it) smacks of an unprofessional environment. Ugh.
  • hackinthebochs 13y ago
    This is an extremely odd sentiment. Now, if said spouse is causing issues that interfere with work then by all means ban this person. But as a blanket rule that seems absurd.
    • prawn 13y ago
      I think "causing issues" was implied by "to the extent that the CEO has to acknowledge it".
  • lmm 13y ago
    I don't think the fact that the CEO has acknowledged it implies anything. If the wife in question's only contact with the company was to visit to and say hi to her husband once a week, I think the CEO's statement would have been exactly the same.
• hanxue 13y ago
  Awesome response
• patomolina 13y ago
  The attitude adopted by the HR department on this matter reminded me of this: http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-11-26/ http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-11-26/ It's good to see that things are changing in GH.
• avoutthere 13y ago
  Ms. Horvath's act of taking this directly to the press was obviously intended to inflict the maximum possible harm on Github and is, in itself, unprofessional and harms her credibility. The right way for her to have handled this would have been to document everything, and then resign and sue them without fanfare. Nobody wins when dirty laundry is aired.
  • jen_h 13y ago
    Most women (and men--Julie's story rang true to me--and also reminded me of persecution some guys I've worked with have endured) protest and, when nothing changes, quit to preserve their health and sanity. They don't sue. They don't get fanfare for it. They quietly resign and move to other pastures. And nothing changes for their coworkers (and other women and men in the industry) who are also harassed. Resigning and talking about it is actually pretty courageous. She doesn't win, she gets a stigma. Her company doesn't win, it gets a stigma. But the spectators with their mouths agog realize that this kind of mismanagement/harassment is not only happening under noses, but also being noticed externally (it's endemic; while women and minorities likely deal with it a lot more, it's not just gender-based, it often happens to the lawful-good no matter what gender or race in small tech companies) and, for a brief time, these companies pull themselves together and become better places to work, if only because it's expensive and time-consuming and morale-killing to fuck this stuff up.
  • ciupicri 13y ago
    Why sue and not just leave? This risk of lawsuits created this whole mess of rules and paperwork that kills all the joy.
  • epsylon 13y ago
    > Ms. Horvath's act of taking this directly to the press was obviously intended to inflict the maximum possible harm on Github If you had read the original article [1] you'd have known that she decided to take action after a "Secret post" was publicly published about her departure. (We could comment all day about the bravery of the anonymous GitHub employees who used Secret as a public mean of ridiculing her) [1] http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes-sexism-and-intimidation-behind-her-github-exit/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes...
• Sindrome 13y ago
  Female developers are not special.
  • sp332 13y ago
    Exactly! She should never have been singled out by the wife, and that coworker shouldn't have had so much free reign to delete her code out of spite.
  • xupybd 13y ago
    Well they kinda are. Because we have a lack of them.
    • swah 13y ago
      So what is the fair proportion?
• happywolf 13y ago
  Here is an article that I found on TechCrunch. Posting the link here just for sharing. No, I am still trying to make out what is happening, so I hold no opinion for now. http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes-sexism-and-intimidation-behind-her-github-exit/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes...
• smtddr 13y ago
  This is the best response that could have ever been made, ever.
• btilly 13y ago
  One of her claims was that she was told that the founder's wife had ALREADY been told not to enter the building. Unless we see confirmation that it has actually happened, I'm not going to believe it. Statements are easy. That's just damage control. We need to see the actual action. I predict that the founder in question stays away for a month or so, and then is exonerated and let back in.
• allochthon 13y ago
  I do not consider the article in TechCrunch to have presented a balanced description of the matter. I will withhold any judgment until Github have carried out an investigation. I will not presume the founder in question, his wife or the other employee to be guilty of the allegations against them until we have more information. I hope Github will be fair and impartial in their investigation.
  • guiambros 13y ago
    Just the fact that the wife of an employee was consistently allowed in the building, is already a serious matter. GitHub is not a scrappy startup anymore; it's a 1 billion dollar company. You do not allow strangers to walk around the office, and much less let them invite employees to dinners to discuss internal matters. Having said that, seems that GitHub recognizes that they screwed up. The tone of their response seemed fair and balanced, and they acted fast by removing the folks involved. Too bad it got to this point, but it's a good sign.
    • ciupicri 13y ago
      > GitHub is not a scrappy startup anymore; it's a 1 billion dollar company Yeah, let's kill all the fun. > You do not allow strangers to walk around the office Except that she wasn't a stranger, she was the wife of a founder. Most old employees probably know her.
    • tomp 13y ago
      Maybe she was an informal part of github's culture ever since it was a 100$ company.
    • mcv 13y ago
      > Just the fact that the wife of an employee was consistently allowed in the building, is already a serious matter Not necessarily. I've worked at plenty of offices where spouses occasionally showed up, including mine. The problem is that she acts like she hold a position of authority.
• nirnira 13y ago
  100% correct form from the media team at Andreesen Horowitz... er, I mean Github.
• curiousgeorgio 13y ago
  Of course we may never know for sure exactly what was said (unless everything was secretly recorded somehow... NSA - data, please), but my initial reaction is that this story sounds a bit... exaggerated. Were things said that shouldn't have been said? Probably so. But here's the way I read it from TC: Let's look at what Horvath claims: > character started being discussed in inappropriate places like on pull requests and issues It's unclear what exactly this means, and in most cases, bringing up someone's character in PRs is certainly inappropriate. Does it happen? Yes, it happens all the time, regardless of gender. A PR comment like "it's a bit naive to assume these conditions will be met in this instruction - please fix" is technically bringing up someone's character inappropriately. She never claimed (at least as quoted by TC) that sexist or intimidating things were brought up in PRs/issues - just that "character started being discussed". > She calls her colleagues’ response to her own work and the work of other female GitHub employees a “serious problem.” Again, pretty unclear. The response to her work MAY have had nothing to do with her gender or any kind of personal/social conflict, but rather based solely on performance. If such was the case, then I'd say colleagues tend to "respond" to other people's work all day long. I honestly can't say the "response" in this case was completely benign, but again, the article and direct quotes certainly don't seem to point at anything specific. > she struggled to feel welcome. This is a common feeling in pretty much any workplace or environment, regardless of who you are. > she did her best to distance herself from the founder’s wife, as well as the founder, for fear of being caught up in an unhealthy situation. This is mentioned before anything else regarding the founder or the founder's wife. It sounds like (at least the way it's presented in the article) some kind of animosity was felt even before any real interaction between the parties. That could be based on anything (including possibly Horvath's own prejudgement). The truth is we don't know because we aren't given any more details. > almost immediately the conversation that I thought was supposed to be causal turned into something very inappropriate. She began telling me about how she informs her husband’s decision-making at GitHub, how I better not leave GitHub and write something bad about them, and how she had been told by her husband that she should intervene with my relationship to be sure I was ‘made very happy’ so that I wouldn’t quit and say something nasty about her husband’s company because ‘he had worked so hard.’... the wife went on to claim that she was responsible for hires at GitHub, and asked Horvath to explain to her what she was working on. Just for sake of argument, here's a possible conversation that could be twisted into fitting the above description: "Glad you could join us for drinks! My husband works hard to create an amazing workplace at GitHub, and even though I'm not a part of the company myself, I enjoy meeting the employees and want to help people feel welcome the best way I can. My husband told me you're fairly new... what is it you do? That's great. I just want to make sure you're very happy at GitHub. In some way, I feel responsible for helping make sure the company treats everyone well. If there's anything that could be better, I might be able to put in a word with him. The last thing they'd want is for you to have a bad experience and leave the company." That's just an example of something I wouldn't be surprised to hear from a founder's spouse in a startup environment. > The wife also claimed to employ “spies” inside of GitHub, and claimed to be able to, again according to Horvath, read GitHub employees’ private chat-room logs, which only employees are supposed to have access to I agree this is definitely crossing a line, but of course the wife only "claimed" to have this access. That doesn't mean she does, and I could easily see it being said in a low voice (trying to win over someone's "exclusive" or "secret" friendly confidence) along the lines of: "I'm not officially with GitHub, but I have ears. I try to keep close tabs on what employees are saying about the company in the chat rooms and company chit-chat." The next few events are pretty vague. It includes rumors, a random profession of love (and rejection) outside the workplace (if she had a problem with trespassing, she should have called the cops; the male engineer's reaction at work - if true - should have been corrected by HR, but it sounds like it was never brought up to HR by Horvath as it should have been), Horvath "feeling threatened", and "the founder accus[ing] her of threatening his wife", followed by the wife "sitting close to Horvath". Lots of generalities. Finally it bubbles to the point of Horvath claiming "The next thing I knew the wife was in my face at my work station verbally attacking me" From my own experience, perfectly civil conversations can often be turned into "verbal attacks" later if it helps a person's case. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but the details are just so vague. What was the conversation about? As for the hula hooping... you're telling me that two women hula hooping to music in the workplace is perfectly appropriate, but when the other people nearby (who are going to be mostly males if the majority of employees are male - go figure) suddenly notice, that's the inappropriate part? Really? I certainly won't say that Horvath is making this stuff up, and it does sound like some inappropriate actions did occur and she should be upset. But I will say that based on the "evidence" presented in the TC article, GitHub is not guilty of all the claims "beyond a shadow of a doubt."
• logicchains 13y ago
  Does Horvath's characterisation of the founder's wife remind anyone else of Lady MacBeth? The situation seems suitably dramatic for it.
• balls187 13y ago
  Don't know what to make of this. The founder getting his wife involved made a serious mistake. Agreed with most everyone else here, the CEO made the right call. I'm now trying to understand though, what precipitated this whole mess. Julie talks about github as a "boys-club" culture and that her character was under attack in pull requests and issues, but doesn't give any more details. Julie talks about passive aggressive behavior from a coworker, but this was while her ordeal with one of the founders was going on. So what triggered this collapse?
• sequoia 13y ago
  When I arrived at this thread, comment two was 'using the information available in the short techcrunch article, I'm now going to PROVE, point by point, how Horvath's claims are false.' Comment three was 'aha they issued a vague apology, this is basically a FULL ADMISSION that everything Horvath said was true!' People: when did our brains melt and spill out of our ears? There is not enough public information present to reliably prove or disprove anything at this point; Github issued a nonspecific semi-apology (to wit: "It’s certain that there were things we could have done differently" well, yeah this is usually the case) with some promising indications that they are taking the issue seriously & looking into it. Now we wait. Stop saying github is admitting to every point of Horvath's assertions! Stop saying Horvath is a liar! You don't know these things! Take deep breaths, listen for a bit, and wait for more information to come out.
  • ssorallen 13y ago
    Yes. Comments on the original TechCrunch article were equally vindicating even though that article offered no actual evidence. It's unfortunate TechCrunch and Valley Wag posted the story without first corroborating at least some piece of it. GitHub's response neither confirms nor denies any part of the story. It does say the founder's wife will no longer be allowed in the office, but that is not an admission of wrongdoing nor of her ever having been in the office. Edit: The only thing this response proves is that GitHub is taking these allegations seriously, which hopefully means there will be more information after they have time to investigate. Try not to jump to the many other conclusions already posted in HN comments.
    • 001sky 13y ago
      "offered no actual evidence" First hand testimony might be imperfect, but It is evidence. Whether or not its conclusive remains to be seen. That's the larger point. Certainly, the above linked article lends at least some credibility to some claims. The fact that the wife of a founder needed to <even be mentioned> in this type of PR damage controll manouvre...is a huge red flag by itself.
      • 13y ago
• ketralnis 13y ago
  I don't see how this is any of our business. Is HN a gossip rag? Because otherwise this is just two indirect blobs of hearsay directed at each other.
  • antihero 13y ago
    Because it involves an important issue within our industry, and how a major company is dealing with it.
• PakG1 13y ago
  The actions that Github has taken lends credibility to what Horvath has said. Of course, we'll not know the whole truth until sometime in the future, if ever. Even if this episode were only hypothetical, this episode reminds me that many people have poor decision-making abilities, even if they are super intelligent. A co-founder of a company like Github would and should have a very good brain and very good decision-making prowess. And yet, here we see instances of him possibly: 1. Not being able to identify boundaries between his personal life and his work life, and allowing factors from his personal life to influence his work life, possibly very negatively (magnified by his position at the company). 2. Not being able to communicate with people and ascertain the truth of the matter. Someone had to lie to cause him to accuse Horvath of lying: either his wife lied or Horvath lied, and he didn't appear to do a good job of getting the truth and resolving the situation. 3. Having perhaps made a poor marriage decision. I would not be surprised if everyone downvotes me for this speculation, and am sorry if this ruffles features. But if this episode is true, there are very few ways that this co-founder's marriage comes out looking good. Either he's absolutely insensitive to the needs of his company or he's completely whipped by a woman who cares more about herself than him. If it's a poor marriage decision, he wouldn't be the first person in history, people from all walks of life seem to make poor marriage decisions all the time. In the end, I am reminded again that people are messy, and no matter how intelligent they appear to be, they can still have the potential to act stupidly.
  • tomp 13y ago
    Wow, you make it sound so easy. > Not being able to communicate with people and ascertain the truth of the matter. Someone had to lie to cause him to accuse Horvath of lying: either his wife lied or Horvath lied, and he didn't appear to do a good job of getting the truth and resolving the situation. Sure, and a good managers should have no problem figuring out things that can take police and the courts years and years. > If it's a poor marriage decision, he wouldn't be the first person in history, people from all walks of life seem to make poor marriage decisions all the time. How is that relevant, and what exactly does that even mean? You don't really know who the person is and will be when you're getting married, you're just making a bet that they really are who you think they are, and that they wouldn't change in the future. If this episode is true, they can either do what married people should do (stick together, learn, communicate, support each other, and resolve the issues), or they can say "fuck it, we're stupid and made a poor marriage decision", and separate.
• jordanb 13y ago
  In github's defense, that rug really tied the room together.
• peterwwillis 13y ago
  Please - I would like to ask all the commenters to respect the privacy and feelings of all the people affected, their loved ones, and friends. The only productive or good thing you can do is express sympathy for the victims and hope they reach an amicable resolution. Most of you probably have no idea how some thoughtless comments on a forum can cause grief, pain and fear to intensify. Making hurtful comments, making assumptions, and taking sides does nothing to help anyone involved. It can only hurt someone, and is completely unnecessary (other than for sating a debased wish to feed on the suffering of others). Whatever happens does not concern you and will not be affected by you in any positive way. So, pretty please, for the sake of all the people who are directly and indirectly affected by this story, STOP. SPECULATING.
• Exenith 13y ago
  I try to avoid these topics, but it's almost sad to see how easily you've all rushed to her side. It seems the magic word of the 2010s is "sexism": utter that word, and people will defend you no matter how little evidence there is, no matter how full of shit you are -- assuming, of course, you are a female. Is what she described accurate? Maybe so, maybe not. No one fucking knows, and that is the point. Stop being assholes about it until someone, if anyone, has been proven to have done wrong. It's not uncommon for someone to feel sourgrapes about a situation and use "sexism" as a way to manipulate it in their favor. Most of you act like that isn't even a fucking possibility.
  • theoden 13y ago
    Yes, the white knight beta male brigade is out in force today, ready to defend any damsel in distress. Of course assuming victimhood just because she's a woman is deeply sexist according to their own genderless ideology, but never mind.
• Cacti 13y ago
  What a fucking circle jerk.
• linuxhansl 13y ago
  I wish we could stop this. Women in software is an important topic. This specific issue on the other hand is just a he-said-she-said soap opera. Nobody but the folks directly involved here know what really happened. Everything else is useless.
  • brazzy 13y ago
    The problem is that it's always he-said-she-said, especially in the worst cases.
    • linuxhansl 13y ago
      That is very true. I would maintain, though, that besides the involved parties nobody can possibly know what really happened, and hence everything is just idle speculation.
• klrr 13y ago
  Is bullying legal in this particular state? If so I don't get why Julia didn't reported it to the police when it all started.
• n1ghtmare_ 13y ago
  Honestly If all of this is true, then obviously what happened is wrong, but I don't really see the sexism in this whole thing. Is it the houla-hoops thingy ? Because I gotta tell you if 2 dudes start doing houla-hoops where I work everybody will stop and watch ... Just because it's ... I dunno weird ? funny ? unusual ? Am I missing something ?
  • ojii 13y ago
    I also didn't see the connection at first, but as I understand it the sexism claim comes from the implication that her experiences are at least partially due to her gender. as in, the situations were handled the way they were because she's a woman. as I read her side, the hoola hooping was more so to show an example of the allegedly sexist culture at GitHub.
• joeblau 13y ago
  One of the things I'm very curious about is what effect this will have on GitHub's culture as a whole. I've been in a startups where one of my colleagues triggered events that slowly began transforming our startup culture into more of a corporate culture.
• joyeuse6701 13y ago
  This validates a lot of things without explicitly doing so. Why put the engineer in question on leave, and the wife and the founder and mentioning it in this apology? Makes no sense unless it was because of what happened. That isn't to say that what Julie said happened did, but there is an ounce of credibility there. Depending on how this resolves, I may (likely) take my business elsewhere.
  • brazzy 13y ago
    > Makes no sense unless it was because of what happened. Makes perfect sense if you have a public watching that will see anything else as protecting the offenders and tear you to pieces. This mereley proves that they cannot actually disprove the allegations, since that is the only other course of action that won't make you look bad.
• mcv 13y ago
  This is a great apology, and goes a long way to restore my shattered faith in github. No denying or spinning what happened, no victim blaming; just "we fucked up, we're going to do everything we can to fix it, and Julie is great". That's all I expect. Own up, fix the problem, and protect the victim.
• bakhy 13y ago
  a very nice apology, but it cannot be enough. i hope some specific action will be taken. but somehow, i am doubtful. it is relatively easy to apologize, and say "we will investigate". but, how does something like this happen, if it did happen, without people knowing? Ms Horvath stated she raised the issue, yet it took a public scandal to actually issue a "we will investigate" statement? at the very least, IMO, GitHub must get rid of the problematic co-founder.
  • bakhy 13y ago
    P.S. i cannot resist the impression that all this talk in the comments, about how we don't know anything to make any conclusions, is coming from distrust of Ms Horwath because she is a woman.
• learningram 13y ago
  I think there is whole chunk of story missing.. Some context/information is missing from her allegations. The wife's behavior doesn't make sense. Too many red flags in Julie's version. But I will wait for the complete story.
• krick 13y ago
  The sad thing is that however the real story may have nothing to do with sexism, but as it's presented as "sexism story" and "protecting other women", the people who will probably suffer the most after that story are that very women. It would be pretty natural for many HRs to remember that story as "possible hazard" and ceteris paribus reject the female candidate.
• cpks 13y ago
  This is a textbook response to a harassment issue. It is extremely professional. You put the accused on paid leave. You do not fire them. If the accuser is correct, this prevents further damage. If the accuser is incorrect, this prevents permanent damage to the accused. You contact a full internal investigation, and you do not issue any statements biased either way until you have full information from that investigation. At the end of the investigation, you either bring back the accused employees if they appear innocent, or lay them off if they appear guilty. This is absolutely the right thing to do. I understand the Internet would like companies to go in with pitchforks before investigating. That is wrong. In the majority of discrimination cases, the accuser is wrong (for example, the accused is an equal-opportunity-asshole, but the accuser feels targeted). When the accuser is right, you want to know the level and details before acting in any irreversible way (and a public statement, aside from potentially being libel, is irreversible). The Internet's attention span is the Internet's problem -- not github's.
• TheCondor 13y ago
  I'm going to sound *ist... You know how this is solved? Seriously? If you are abused, violated, made to feel uncomfortable, intimidated, etc... Write it down, gather evidence, gather some witnesses and then hire a lawyer and start suing. Go after the vc if it's a start up and the founders are involved... That's how we got seat belts... I just don't see much good coming from putting this in the open like this. Sue them then do the book deal or tc article
  • LukeB_UK 13y ago
    And I don't see much good from simply suing a company without trying to work with them in the first place. If it was your company, surely you'd want them to try and solve it internally first?
    • TheCondor 13y ago
      I'll clarify, sue them as opposed to taking it to twitter and a pseudo-journalistic startup news site. I would think that it would be the last resort and some reasonable amount of effort be made before taking that option. Or conversely, name names, go all in. Put the bad actors on notice and let what happens happen. It's not libel if it's true. Just all the rumors, speculation, etc. doesn't seem good for any thing. Not everyone involved with GitHub is an a-hole, at least I hope not.. All things being equal, I have no idea what the timelines are, I have no idea what reasonable things were done or not, I have no idea who is on leave or not. Yet in this thread strangers are questioning the marriage decisions of other people... It's an ugly story and it brings out ugly in the community. Sue everyone involved and if you win, future companies will certainly be different. My off the cuff immediate take away? Be really careful with the ultra social folks, big blog or big twitter following and they might just blow up in your face in a very public way.
• avenger123 13y ago
  I am just reading about all this now. First of all, the main theme that resonates with me is that no company is immune to these things no matter how much "special" or "different" they are. At this point, I don't completely accept everything Horvath is saying nor do I believe what she is saying is all lies. The truth as is always the case is never black and white. What I do accept is that there is definitely serious issues that need to be taken a look at that have been brought up. Github did not need to respond and I believe they responded quite well. There response cannot be point by point rebuttal or a statement of denial. It's a measured response stating that they are taking action to look into the issues. Putting a founder on leave is a major decision and sends the message to Github's employees and the rest of the community that they are taking this seriously. My takeaway from the response was recognition that Horvath's assertions are with weight and they will not shy away from investigation. There is no doubt that Horvath's assertions have made Github deal with this. Having a founder be involved would likely have swept all of this under the rug. I commend Horath's for speaking out. I am certain it wasn't an easy decision and very painful. I also commend Github for having the CEO write this response instead of hiding behind a shield of legalese. I do believe something will come out from this for the positive. There are too many great people within Github that do not need to be there that will now have an opportunity to take a reality check and assess for themselves Horvath's claims and drive for change. The founder may be the most in the hot seat. Github may use this as the "last straw" of many straws that may have been already bulging at the camel's back to exit the founder.