9 ms·

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 t

Of course we may never know for sure exactly what was said (unless everything was secretly recorded somehow... NSA - data, please), but my initial reaction is that this story sounds a bit... exaggerated. Were things said that shouldn't have been said? Probably so. But here's the way I read it from TC: Let's look at what Horvath claims: > character started being discussed in inappropriate places like on pull requests and issues It's unclear what exactly this means, and in most cases, bringing up someone's character in PRs is certainly inappropriate. Does it happen? Yes, it happens all the time, regardless of gender. A PR comment like "it's a bit naive to assume these conditions will be met in this instruction - please fix" is technically bringing up someone's character inappropriately. She never claimed (at least as quoted by TC) that sexist or intimidating things were brought up in PRs/issues - just that "character started being discussed". > She calls her colleagues’ response to her own work and the work of other female GitHub employees a “serious problem.” Again, pretty unclear. The response to her work MAY have had nothing to do with her gender or any kind of personal/social conflict, but rather based solely on performance. If such was the case, then I'd say colleagues tend to "respond" to other people's work all day long. I honestly can't say the "response" in this case was completely benign, but again, the article and direct quotes certainly don't seem to point at anything specific. > she struggled to feel welcome. This is a common feeling in pretty much any workplace or environment, regardless of who you are. > she did her best to distance herself from the founder’s wife, as well as the founder, for fear of being caught up in an unhealthy situation. This is mentioned before anything else regarding the founder or the founder's wife. It sounds like (at least the way it's presented in the article) some kind of animosity was felt even before any real interaction between the parties. That could be based on anything (including possibly Horvath's own prejudgement). The truth is we don't know because we aren't given any more details. > almost immediately the conversation that I thought was supposed to be causal turned into something very inappropriate. She began telling me about how she informs her husband’s decision-making at GitHub, how I better not leave GitHub and write something bad about them, and how she had been told by her husband that she should intervene with my relationship to be sure I was ‘made very happy’ so that I wouldn’t quit and say something nasty about her husband’s company because ‘he had worked so hard.’... the wife went on to claim that she was responsible for hires at GitHub, and asked Horvath to explain to her what she was working on. Just for sake of argument, here's a possible conversation that could be twisted into fitting the above description: "Glad you could join us for drinks! My husband works hard to create an amazing workplace at GitHub, and even though I'm not a part of the company myself, I enjoy meeting the employees and want to help people feel welcome the best way I can. My husband told me you're fairly new... what is it you do? That's great. I just want to make sure you're very happy at GitHub. In some way, I feel responsible for helping make sure the company treats everyone well. If there's anything that could be better, I might be able to put in a word with him. The last thing they'd want is for you to have a bad experience and leave the company." That's just an example of something I wouldn't be surprised to hear from a founder's spouse in a startup environment. > The wife also claimed to employ “spies” inside of GitHub, and claimed to be able to, again according to Horvath, read GitHub employees’ private chat-room logs, which only employees are supposed to have access to I agree this is definitely crossing a line, but of course the wife only "claimed" to have this access. That doesn't mean she does, and I could easily see it being said in a low voice (trying to win over someone's "exclusive" or "secret" friendly confidence) along the lines of: "I'm not officially with GitHub, but I have ears. I try to keep close tabs on what employees are saying about the company in the chat rooms and company chit-chat." The next few events are pretty vague. It includes rumors, a random profession of love (and rejection) outside the workplace (if she had a problem with trespassing, she should have called the cops; the male engineer's reaction at work - if true - should have been corrected by HR, but it sounds like it was never brought up to HR by Horvath as it should have been), Horvath "feeling threatened", and "the founder accus[ing] her of threatening his wife", followed by the wife "sitting close to Horvath". Lots of generalities. Finally it bubbles to the point of Horvath claiming "The next thing I knew the wife was in my face at my work station verbally attacking me" From my own experience, perfectly civil conversations can often be turned into "verbal attacks" later if it helps a person's case. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but the details are just so vague. What was the conversation about? As for the hula hooping... you're telling me that two women hula hooping to music in the workplace is perfectly appropriate, but when the other people nearby (who are going to be mostly males if the majority of employees are male - go figure) suddenly notice, that's the inappropriate part? Really? I certainly won't say that Horvath is making this stuff up, and it does sound like some inappropriate actions did occur and she should be upset. But I will say that based on the "evidence" presented in the TC article, GitHub is not guilty of all the claims "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

SolarNet 13y ago
Actually of all of these the last one is the only one I think your counter is flat out wrong (all the others seem plausible enough). Why? Because gawking at other co-workers (regardless of genders) in a casual environment is not ok. In a casual work environment people often do light exercise, and they need to feel comfortable to do that without being turned into sex objects. I would hope the men in question have enough self control to ignore women moving their bodies around. You are basically using the same logic as countries that require burqas in public. This has already been covered by feminist movements in this country. It is seriously a sign of how backwards the tech industry is in regards to social equality that this sort of basic stuff is missing from general knowledge.
- curiousgeorgio 13y ago
  I wasn't trying to say that "gawking" is acceptable (sorry if that's the way it came across). My point is that one person's description of people "gawking" may very well have been simply the other people acknowledging their presence. It's pretty hard to prove one way or the other.
  - SolarNet 13y ago
    That's fair, and Horvath's description is vague: "What I did have a problem with is the line of men sitting on one bench facing the hoopers and gawking at them" But it's important to remember these could go the other way as well. Horvath may still feel some loyalty to github and be sugar coating these events. Or you could be right and she is blowing them out of proportion.
- sockgrant 13y ago
  > In a casual work environment people often do light exercise Could you elaborate on this? In the work environments I've been in, people go to the gym or outside to work out. I've never been in a work environment where it's acceptable to do your exercising in the office space. What are you talking about -- yoga, bicep curls, jogging, jumping jacks? I've worked at extremely liberal companies but that kind of stuff doesn't happen.. > and they need to feel comfortable to do that without being turned into sex objects I don't think it's a person's right to hula hoop in an office and then be upset when they attract the attention of the rest of the office, regardless of sex on both sides. It's an unusual thing to do, so it will draw eyes.

SolarNet 13y ago

Actually of all of these the last one is the only one I think your counter is flat out wrong (all the others seem plausible enough). Why? Because gawking at other co-workers (regardless of genders) in a casual environment is not ok. In a casual work environment people often do light exercise, and they need to feel comfortable to do that without being turned into sex objects. I would hope the men in question have enough self control to ignore women moving their bodies around. You are basically using the same logic as countries that require burqas in public. This has already been covered by feminist movements in this country. It is seriously a sign of how backwards the tech industry is in regards to social equality that this sort of basic stuff is missing from general knowledge.

curiousgeorgio 13y ago
I wasn't trying to say that "gawking" is acceptable (sorry if that's the way it came across). My point is that one person's description of people "gawking" may very well have been simply the other people acknowledging their presence. It's pretty hard to prove one way or the other.
- SolarNet 13y ago
  That's fair, and Horvath's description is vague: "What I did have a problem with is the line of men sitting on one bench facing the hoopers and gawking at them" But it's important to remember these could go the other way as well. Horvath may still feel some loyalty to github and be sugar coating these events. Or you could be right and she is blowing them out of proportion.
sockgrant 13y ago
> In a casual work environment people often do light exercise Could you elaborate on this? In the work environments I've been in, people go to the gym or outside to work out. I've never been in a work environment where it's acceptable to do your exercising in the office space. What are you talking about -- yoga, bicep curls, jogging, jumping jacks? I've worked at extremely liberal companies but that kind of stuff doesn't happen.. > and they need to feel comfortable to do that without being turned into sex objects I don't think it's a person's right to hula hoop in an office and then be upset when they attract the attention of the rest of the office, regardless of sex on both sides. It's an unusual thing to do, so it will draw eyes.