7 ms·

I don't even know what to make of this. They say there was no evidence but he is still resigning.

by gregimba 12y ago

antidaily 12y ago
It's a distraction.
- weixiyen 12y ago
  Only if it was true or partially true. If it was completely off-base and false, they'd be going after the person making the allegations like there was no tomorrow.
awda 12y ago
They say there was no evidence of gender-based harassment, but I don't see them claiming "there was no evidence of harassment" either. Don't know enough to pass judgement.
steveklabnik 12y ago
It says there's no evidence of gender-based $BAD_THING, but not that no $BAD_THINGs happened. One could argue that allowing a non-employee so much access to a private company is an 'error of judgement.' (Referring to Horvath's comments about Tom's wife)
ljklnfds 12y ago
Dude's probably incredibly rich, he can spend the rest of his life on a beach. Why bother dragging through this? Just go buy a boat or something.
- egwor 12y ago
  boat's keep a man poor. Get a caravan ;-)
SpikeGronim 12y ago
They say no evidence of illegality, but there is evidence of poor judgement. Without commenting on the specifics of this incident that's a valid reason to fire a CEO/co-founder/exec. I have no particular knowledge of what happened but if GitHub thinks he showed poor judgement then it is reasonable to ask him to resign.
- asuffield 12y ago
  For example, if you didn't actually do anything legally wrong, but made it look an awful lot like you did by screwing up and being a dick about it, and you're a company executive, then you can resign or get fired. I suspect that this is not a million miles from what happened here: not actual discrimination, but enough of a blunder to look like it.
falcolas 12y ago
No _legal_ wrongdoing. This reads to me as "Tom royally fucked up, but not enough to break any laws."
- ffbellfhtlflf 12y ago
  Have you read this? https://medium.com/p/d96f431f4e8e https://medium.com/p/d96f431f4e8e How are you making baseless assumptions alllllll over the thread? Absolutely ridiculous, mud-raking behavior you should be ashamed
egwor 12y ago
well, even if he did nothing wrong his position was probably untenable. He'll have lost his credibility and more will be said about this incident than any other. i.e. anything else gitbhub would do/release, would most probably be clouded by this incident Irrespective of which scenario occurred, he made the most appropriate, and honourable decision.
ddebernardy 12y ago
The post is PR-speak for: > "We found lots of ugly stuff but would rather not mention any of it in public, so move along, nothing to see"
- Mtinie 12y ago
  Is the expectation that the public should be privy to that ugly stuff? (Asking because I'm curious of other's opinions on the matter, not because I'm questioning your statement)
  - ddebernardy 12y ago
    Speaking for myself, I couldn't care less. But then I wasn't following the story at all to begin with. The truth though is that this isn't the kind of stuff we continental Europeans care much about. Heck, we elect notorious pussy hounds as presidents around here, so I imagine that whatever the guy did is benign compared to Berlusconi's sex orgies with barely legal (or not legal at all) prostitutes. (Not saying it's any good, mind you. Just try to picture the yardsticks we have.)
ephemeralgomi 12y ago
"the investigator did find evidence of mistakes and errors of judgment."
rmrfrmrf 12y ago
They're trying to discourage employees and ex-employees from filing a class action lawsuit.
danielweber 12y ago
TOTALLY MADE-UP EXAMPLE: 1. Employee makes sexual harassment claim. 2. Outside HR consultant brought in. 3. Consultant asks "where is your anti-sexual harassment training course?" 4. CEO says o_o. 5. HR consultant establishes a policy for the company. 6. Board asks CEO to resign for not having the thing asked for in #3. Not having a training course isn't illegal -- it's not even evidence that anyone was sexually harassed -- but the board can ask the CEO to move on because they feel he was not sufficiently protecting the company. (PS: Post-college I've never worked at a place large enough to have required a harassment training course. This is just an example of "something the CEO should have done to protect the company but didn't, and we got away with it this time but might not next time.")
- mahyarm 12y ago
  In California once your company goes over a certain size (which github has), they must have a sexual harassment course presented to the employees every one or two years. In my company that was a mandatory all company meeting where a lawyer made a powerpoint presentation for a couple of hours. Then there was some sort quiz and us signing something as far as I can remember.
  - endeavor 12y ago
    I believe the state requirement is for managers, not regular employees. Every 2 years I have to spend a couple hours taking a traffic-school-style online training.
    - steveklabnik 12y ago
      I am not a lawyer, but http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications_StatLaws_SexHarrass.htm http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications_StatLaws_SexHarrass.htm All employees must receive info, companies > 50 need to offer two hours of classroom time within six months and then every two years.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
rsynnott 12y ago
No evidence of legal wrongdoing, which is a pretty high bar. Many companies will expect better of their president than "did not actually act illegally".

I don't even know what to make of this. They say there was no evidence but he is still resigning.

antidaily 12y ago

It's a distraction.

weixiyen 12y ago
Only if it was true or partially true. If it was completely off-base and false, they'd be going after the person making the allegations like there was no tomorrow.

awda 12y ago

They say there was no evidence of gender-based harassment, but I don't see them claiming "there was no evidence of harassment" either. Don't know enough to pass judgement.

steveklabnik 12y ago

It says there's no evidence of gender-based $BAD_THING, but not that no $BAD_THINGs happened. One could argue that allowing a non-employee so much access to a private company is an 'error of judgement.' (Referring to Horvath's comments about Tom's wife)

ljklnfds 12y ago

Dude's probably incredibly rich, he can spend the rest of his life on a beach. Why bother dragging through this? Just go buy a boat or something.

egwor 12y ago
boat's keep a man poor. Get a caravan ;-)

SpikeGronim 12y ago

They say no evidence of illegality, but there is evidence of poor judgement. Without commenting on the specifics of this incident that's a valid reason to fire a CEO/co-founder/exec. I have no particular knowledge of what happened but if GitHub thinks he showed poor judgement then it is reasonable to ask him to resign.

asuffield 12y ago
For example, if you didn't actually do anything legally wrong, but made it look an awful lot like you did by screwing up and being a dick about it, and you're a company executive, then you can resign or get fired. I suspect that this is not a million miles from what happened here: not actual discrimination, but enough of a blunder to look like it.

falcolas 12y ago

No _legal_ wrongdoing. This reads to me as "Tom royally fucked up, but not enough to break any laws."

ffbellfhtlflf 12y ago
Have you read this? https://medium.com/p/d96f431f4e8e https://medium.com/p/d96f431f4e8e How are you making baseless assumptions alllllll over the thread? Absolutely ridiculous, mud-raking behavior you should be ashamed

egwor 12y ago

well, even if he did nothing wrong his position was probably untenable. He'll have lost his credibility and more will be said about this incident than any other. i.e. anything else gitbhub would do/release, would most probably be clouded by this incident Irrespective of which scenario occurred, he made the most appropriate, and honourable decision.

ddebernardy 12y ago

The post is PR-speak for: > "We found lots of ugly stuff but would rather not mention any of it in public, so move along, nothing to see"

Mtinie 12y ago
Is the expectation that the public should be privy to that ugly stuff? (Asking because I'm curious of other's opinions on the matter, not because I'm questioning your statement)
- ddebernardy 12y ago
  Speaking for myself, I couldn't care less. But then I wasn't following the story at all to begin with. The truth though is that this isn't the kind of stuff we continental Europeans care much about. Heck, we elect notorious pussy hounds as presidents around here, so I imagine that whatever the guy did is benign compared to Berlusconi's sex orgies with barely legal (or not legal at all) prostitutes. (Not saying it's any good, mind you. Just try to picture the yardsticks we have.)

ephemeralgomi 12y ago

"the investigator did find evidence of mistakes and errors of judgment."

rmrfrmrf 12y ago

They're trying to discourage employees and ex-employees from filing a class action lawsuit.

danielweber 12y ago

TOTALLY MADE-UP EXAMPLE: 1. Employee makes sexual harassment claim. 2. Outside HR consultant brought in. 3. Consultant asks "where is your anti-sexual harassment training course?" 4. CEO says o_o. 5. HR consultant establishes a policy for the company. 6. Board asks CEO to resign for not having the thing asked for in #3. Not having a training course isn't illegal -- it's not even evidence that anyone was sexually harassed -- but the board can ask the CEO to move on because they feel he was not sufficiently protecting the company. (PS: Post-college I've never worked at a place large enough to have required a harassment training course. This is just an example of "something the CEO should have done to protect the company but didn't, and we got away with it this time but might not next time.")

mahyarm 12y ago
In California once your company goes over a certain size (which github has), they must have a sexual harassment course presented to the employees every one or two years. In my company that was a mandatory all company meeting where a lawyer made a powerpoint presentation for a couple of hours. Then there was some sort quiz and us signing something as far as I can remember.
- endeavor 12y ago
  I believe the state requirement is for managers, not regular employees. Every 2 years I have to spend a couple hours taking a traffic-school-style online training.
  - steveklabnik 12y ago
    I am not a lawyer, but http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications_StatLaws_SexHarrass.htm http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications_StatLaws_SexHarrass.htm All employees must receive info, companies > 50 need to offer two hours of classroom time within six months and then every two years.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

rsynnott 12y ago

No evidence of legal wrongdoing, which is a pretty high bar. Many companies will expect better of their president than "did not actually act illegally".