9 ms·

Ada Initiative No Longer Partnering with GitHub

103 points by gortok 13y ago

cwaniak2 13y ago
Co-founders wife who doesn't even work for GitHub was running the show and had argument with another woman there who happens to work for GitHub. Ada Initiative conclusion: SEXISM!
diego 13y ago
This reads like a prejudicial post, based on a biased interpretation of unclear events. Not what I would expect from an organization whose goal is to fight against prejudice.
- maldeh 13y ago
  The post only deals with ending association, and doesn't make any direct accusation against Github. As a feminist organization devoted to protecting women in the workplace from similar (but not necessarily identical) circumstances, it's only prudent to distance themselves at this point of time regardless of whether Github's actions were truly gender-biased.
  - diego 13y ago
    "The sum of these events make it impossible for Ada Initiative to partner with GitHub at this time." Why? It doesn't follow from the description of the events. Have they spoken with someone at Github? Are they being pressured by their members or other people? Do they have evidence that GH is worse in those respects than other organizations they partner with? Is ending the partnership the best possible course of action both for their cause and for their members?
    - maldeh 13y ago
      Surely one doesn't need to be pressured by third parties to make a judgment call on this situation? You must concede that there is some polarization in the debate over Github's reaction, with positive nods about the company's work environment and promptness, and some consternation over the legal posturing. Again, Ada is simply saying they cannot continue association with Github. The statement you quoted explicitly states that there were several variables to consider, including their own image as a protector of women's rights (their charter is not to end ALL prejudice, it's specifically aimed at prejudice against women).
  - waseem_ 13y ago
    Shouldn't it be 'innocent until proven guilty' in this case? This certainly spreads some negative advertisement for Github. If the case is not clear, they should wait till it's clear.
    - ihuman 13y ago
      "Innocent until proven guilty" often only applies to legality, and not people's mentality.
      - lkd 13y ago
        Correct. According to SJWs, straight white men are guilty until they're proven innocent, and even afterwards, they're still guilty somehow.
      - baddox 13y ago
        It only has legal status in government courts. But it can still be good advice in a broader context.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        It can be, but it isn't always. The reason for the presumption of innocence combined with the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal trials is a judgement about the desirability of the particular effects that can be expected with and without that principal. It cannot automatically be assumed that those considerations generalize to other contexts -- they must be considered in each context.
        baddox 13y ago
        In the broader context, like in the legal context, it's not a claim about what is true, but rather a claim about what we should believe (or more appropriately, how we should treat the accused) given the evidence we have. You don't say "this person definitely didn't commit a crime, because we don't have evidence," but rather "we don't consider this person guilty, and thus don't punish him or her, until we get some evidence."
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - ssmoot 13y ago
    > "It is also contrary to our principles to be silent when our existing sponsors and collaborators' actions consistently do not support our mission." This seems verifiably false since Github did in fact sponsor conferences, efforts and perks. So one bad story, that the details aren't entirely clear on, that resulted in the ousting of a founder, means Github, despite going out of their way to put money on the table to support the cause, isn't worthy? "With friends like these..." seems apt.
  - sitkack 13y ago
    And they can patch things up later. Makes total sense in the now term.
  - baddox 13y ago
    There are direct accusations against Github: > It was shortly followed by a blog post from the resigning co-founder which included a clear threat of legal action against anyone who said he or his wife had engaged in gender-based harassment or discrimination. That's a direct accusation, and a false one. The threat was against false accusations. > The sum of these events make it impossible for Ada Initiative to partner with GitHub at this time. ... We will not accept future sponsorships from or partnerships with GitHub unless the situation changes significantly. ... We are working hard to create a world in which women can participate in open source software, Wikipedia, and other areas of open technology and culture without harassment, intimidation, or discrimination. Sometimes this means refusing to partner with or accept sponsorship from specific people or organizations. It is also contrary to our principles to be silent when our existing sponsors and collaborators' actions consistently do not support our mission. It doesn't get much more direct than this.
    - pyre 13y ago
      > The threat was against false accusations. If legal action is taken, of course it will be on the grounds that the accusations are false. Whether the accusation is actually true or false, may not have any bearing on whether or not legal action is taken.
      - baddox 13y ago
        But the accused knows whether or not the accusations are true, and the claim is that legal action will be taken only if the accusations are false. This is pretty normal. False accusations, especially about serious crimes or misconduct, are usually taken very seriously.
        makomk 13y ago
        I'm sure she'd be very reassured by the fact that, after a drawn out battle and legal fees she can ill-afford, she'd probably defeat the lawsuit in the end. Maybe. Assuming she can both prove her claims to the satisfaction of the courts and afford the lawyers to do so.
  - whiterabbit2 12y ago
    Where those women "to protect" are treated like babies who have no say of their own.
- slowmotiony 13y ago
  Are you surprised?
- bicknergseng 13y ago
  Seems to me like a decision that will not help to further the initiative's goals. Feels like diplomacy by isolation and cutting communication.
  - sheetjs 13y ago
    > The Ada Initiative supports women in open technology and culture through activities like producing codes of conduct and anti-harassment policies, advocating for gender diversity, teaching allies, and hosting conferences for women in open tech/culture. If there is a sense that Github doesn't have a proper anti-harassment policy in place, distancing certainly doesn't hurt the initiative's goals
    - bicknergseng 13y ago
      I would argue the correct path of action would be to work with Github to develop a proper anti-harassment policy, rather than cutting ties. While the harassment incident is certainly bad (if unclear), Github has done other things and shown a willingness to do more to further Ada's goals. Now, maybe there is more to the story, but the post didn't seem to reveal it.
- jarrett 13y ago
  Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the post, but I understood it to say that what the authors perceived as a "threat of legal action" was a significant factor in their decision. I presume that is a reference to Tom Preston-Werner's comment: "we are prepared to fight any further false claims on this matter to the full extent of the law."[1] Just to be clear: I'm only stating my interpretation of Ada's comments. I know nothing of what actually transpired at GitHub, thus I have not formed an opinion about it. Nor do I claim to know whether anyone threatened or intended to threaten legal action. [1] http://tom.preston-werner.com/2014/04/21/farewell-github-hello-immersive-computing.html http://tom.preston-werner.com/2014/04/21/farewell-github-hel... Edit: In case it wasn't clear from the above post, I'm not taking sides with or against Ada, Github, or anyone else. I'm stating what I took to be Ada's reasoning, but not endorsing nor criticizing that reasoning.
  - ssmoot 13y ago
    Why should such a threat (if you were to interpret it that way), from the very person who was ousted reflect poorly on Github? What does AI expect Github to even do about that? It seems completely irrational.
    - jarrett 13y ago
      Certainly a fair question. Note that I'm not taking sides with or against either Ada or Github. Just saying how I interpreted Ada's comments.
- aaronem 13y ago
  I suppose it depends on the particular prejudice in question.
- sneak 13y ago
  The Ada Initiative is a notorious drama-generating concern troll organization. They are not a positive force and this sort of behavior is unsurprising from them.
- baddox 13y ago
  Where do they say that their goal is to fight against prejudice? I scanned their about pages, and my impression is that their primary goal is to support women.
  - jarrett 13y ago
    Fighting anti-female prejudice could conceivably be part of a strategy for supporting women. At least, it wouldn't be surprising if an organization dedicated to supporting group X fought prejudice against group X.
    - baddox 13y ago
      There's obviously some overlap, but they're not equivalent.
- dbloom 13y ago
  Your criticism is equally applicable to any advocacy organization that distances themselves from an alleged situation that they morally oppose. For example, would you say the same thing about EFF and ACLU speakers canceling their RSA conference talks, due to a "biased interpretation of unclear events" of RSA collaborating with the NSA?
  - danso 13y ago
    Sorry, but that's not the case here. Horvath alleges that illegal behavior took place. Github has said that their investigation has found no such thing, leaving things at an impasse until Horvath produces the evidence that she claims to have. The NSA likewise says that no illegal behavior took place. Independent investigations by other arms of the government, including the Senate, have found otherwise. Furthermore, some of the behavior that the EFF and ACLU object to -- such as the collection of metadata -- the NSA do not deny that they are doing it. They only claim that such activity is legal and beneficial. Until Github takes a stand or makes an assertion with which we can agree or disagree with, the situations are not the same. Right now, Github is basically being asked "Have you stopped sexually harassing your female employees yet?" and its refusal to answer that question is apparently grounds to judge Github.
    - dbloom 13y ago
      Thanks for your feedback, but please re-read my example more carefully. In my example, I talked about organizations distancing themselves from RSA (the company), not the NSA (the US govt agency). And as far as I know, no formal, independent investigation has found RSA guilty of allegations that they knowingly weakened their encryption after the NSA paid them to do so. So it doesn't meet the criteria you just mentioned.
      - danso 13y ago
        Ah, damn my misreading of initials. But to your more specific scenario...we are still talking about a much different level of evidence. OK, let's agree that RSA has not been found "guilty" by any authority. But the allegations do not come from just...well, whoever we might call the original accuser (Snowden? Greenwald?). Independent reports have alleged substantial claims and findings. For example, this is via Reuters, who is also sourcing reports to a group of academics: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/31/us-usa-security-nsa-rsa-idUSBREA2U0TY20140331 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/31/us-usa-security-ns... > (Reuters) - Security industry pioneer RSA adopted not just one but two encryption tools developed by the U.S. National Security Agency, greatly increasing the spy agency's ability to eavesdrop on some Internet communications, according to a team of academic researchers. Reuters reported in December that the NSA had paid RSA $10 million to make a now-discredited cryptography system the default in software used by a wide range of Internet and computer security programs. The system, called Dual Elliptic Curve, was a random number generator, but it had a deliberate flaw - or "back door" - that allowed the NSA to crack the encryption. A group of professors from Johns Hopkins, the University of Wisconsin, the University of Illinois and elsewhere now say they have discovered that a second NSA tool exacerbated the RSA software's vulnerability Even more importantly, RSA did not issue a denial (though I concede that they may have later on, I just haven't googled it yet)...they refused to comment even on the possibility that the NSA made a payment to them regarding the controversial issue. > We could have been more skeptical of NSA's intentions," RSA Chief Technologist Sam Curry told Reuters. "We trusted them because they are charged with security for the U.S. government and U.S. critical infrastructure." Curry declined to say if the government had paid RSA to incorporate Extended Random in its BSafe security kit, which also housed Dual Elliptic Curve. This is quite different than Github. Github not only commented (and took the obvious stance that harassment is wrong) on the allegations a day or so after they were public, but they have launched an independent investigation, and they have asserted that the investigation did not uncover anything for them to cop to. Now you may say that their investigation was a farce...but this, again, is where things stand until more accusers/evidence come out. And it is at this state of uncertainty that Ada Initiative has decided to take a strong position.
- dsl 13y ago
  > This reads like a prejudicial post It is. Do some background research. The Ada Initiative is a radical feminist organization and does more harm than good.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Not really. As a small nonprofit, Ada initiative probably doesn't have the resources to deal with controversy and so it's better to cut ties than to put itself into a charged political situation which would threaten its mission.
  - vdaniuk 13y ago
    Ada initiative received various resources from Github on multiple occasions so the outcome is that they have less resources now.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      Github isn't the only provider of resources out there. Presumably the opportunity cost of breaking off relationswith Github seems to be lower than the opportunity cost of maintaining them. Also, the choice I mentioned was not about whether to maximize resources but about how to sutain its mission. For all I know a large portion of the membership might have been threatening to quit the organization. My basic point is that it's rarely profitable to be in the middle of someone else's bitter conflict. Given AI's mission and the existence of intense bad feeling on both sides following an accusation of workplace sexism, it's easier and smarter for the organization to just walk way from the whole situation rather than taking sides in a conflict whose parameters they don'tunderstand. I have no opinion on the whole Horvath/Github situation because I simply don't have enough information to judge whose version of events is truthful, and I don't even have a GitHub account so I don't care much either way. I'm just pointing out that a small nonprofit might have good reasons for not wanting to be connected to a potentially toxic situation.
  - lawnchair_larry 13y ago
    Haha, very subtle. For a moment I thought you were serious.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
b1naryth1ef 13y ago
Ironically the post reads extremely sexist. "We're offended by due process! Ahhhh the female lost; must be sexism!". I'm not arguing Github hasn't handled this situation as well as possible, but really?
- WalterSear 13y ago
  The fact that they handled it at all, did so publicly, removed key personnel who were involved, and yet were sanctioned for doing so, shows you the poor quality of dialog we have regarding gender relations in tech. And the counterproductive, zero-sum game that modern gender advocates get wrapped up in playing - that is a cause of it.
  - b1naryth1ef 13y ago
    The thing that frustrates me is that the only reason we can even sit here and discuss this properly is that Github is such an open company. If someone comes out of Microsoft and Google (low and behold there have been multiple cases), the best you can expect is a response of "We've handled the situation internally, and those involved have been disciplined in a way <company> deems proper".
    - joshstrange 13y ago
      >> Github is such an open company Did we read the same blog post [0]? While I agree that we might have seen a little more from GitHub than we would have from MS/Google their response to the situation was extremely lacking IMHO. [0] https://github.com/blog/1823-results-of-the-github-investigation https://github.com/blog/1823-results-of-the-github-investiga...
      - clavalle 13y ago
        An independent third party investigation into the matter seems like a pretty solid response. What other steps would you suggest they have taken that would have constituted a satisfactory response?
GUNHED_158 13y ago
Reading the whole story, couldn't find any sign of gender biased action from GitHub.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  I haven't followed this too closely, but GitHub got rid of the people involved, didn't they? So why break off now? I know I'm missing something here.
  - lkd 13y ago
    You can never please SJWs, no matter how much you bend backwards. They'll always find something to complain about. That's the meaning of their entire existence. That's what you're missing.
  - GUNHED_158 13y ago
    What I'm trying to say is that there was no "gender biased" activity involved, although there were some mistakes done by people who are not working there any more. As it seems clear from the accusers notes.
  - makomk 13y ago
    They got rid of one of the people involved who was acting in a grossly unprofessional way. They promoted the guy she complained was retaliating against her professionally for refusing to date him.
some_person 13y ago
This seems like a weird move to take. From what I can tell, there's no clear evidence of gender-related wrongdoing* . There is one person's strong allegations of it, and a handful of accounts saying otherwise (of mixed trustworthiness). So, whether you believe there was gender-related wrongdoing depends entirely on whether you believe Julie Ann Horvath or an independent investigator, or neither. As such, it seems like the only reasonable conclusion for an outside party considering an action related to github (going to work there, partnering with them, or even just using their product) is "we don't know." The only way we could know, with any actionable level of certainty, would be if this went to court. Until that happens, though, any punitive action we take (like boycotting github, or ending partnerships with them), is based on a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach founded in a single person's accusation. That reeks of witchunting, and I'm more than a little concerned by it. * Everything github has said seems to indicate only non-gender-related wrongdoing, specifically the founder's wife pressuring (unintentionally, according to her) employees into helping with her charity.
zhemao 13y ago
Really? Ada Initiative is going to throw away a partnership that was beneficial to them and their constituents because of unproven allegations of harassment by a founder and his wife against a single employee? If Github was truly hostile towards women, why would they support the Ada Initiative in the first place? Sponsoring two conferences "to support women in open technology and culture" is not something a misogynistic organization would do. I do not envy Github's PR staff. It seems like they are going to have a hell of a time repairing the damage from this incident.
- comrh 13y ago
  Github as a corporate entity and Github as a cultural place to work are different things. You can still have misogyny in your organization while the company promotes the opposite.
  - rjknight 13y ago
    Indeed. To borrow a phrase from Ralph Waldo Emerson: "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons"[1]. If you do have a misogynistic workplace then sponsoring anti-misogynist causes may be a way of covering that up (in environmental circles this is known as "greenwashing"). [1] http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/31953/the-louder-he-talked-of-his-honor-the-faster-we-counted-our-spoons http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/31953/the-louder-...
- Wilya 13y ago
  > Sponsoring two conferences "to support women in open technology and culture" is not something a misogynistic organization would do. Of course they would. No organization is likely to official advertise that they are hostile towards women, and sponsoring this kind of events is an easy PR operation. That says absolutely nothing about the day-to-day situation within the company.
- sitkack 13y ago
  Who said they were throwing it away? Distancing one's self is not burning a bridge. I thought the press release was very mature and thought out. The Ada Initiative's goal isn't to help github grow up, it is to help women and girls in tech. And yes, one always has to sacrifice something on principle, otherwise they wouldn't be principles, just more profitable choices.
lkd 13y ago
So they were leeching money and resources from GitHub, and using them in a sexist manner, and they're not going to do that anymore? That'll show 'em!
rjknight 13y ago
This is a tough one. We have Horvath's allegations, and we have confirmation from Github that at least some of them were true. Clearly, bad things happened and the result is the resignation of a former CEO and founder, so it's not as though there have been no consequences. I would be interested to know which allegations the Ada Initiative think have not been addressed, and how they would like them to be addressed.
- Rantenki 13y ago
  Do we really expect that any findings of wrongdoing would be publicized? If their audit publicized that sexual or gender based harassment had occurred, that opens them up to a pretty serious lawsuit. This outcome is pretty much the only one you can expect, regardless of the real events. Also, the ADA initiative doesn't really have a choice here either. Either draw a hard line, or look like they aren't able set the same standards that they ask from others. Finally, if the investigation at Github turned up real mistakes of judgement, why weren't they itemized? We are left guessing what the investigator found. Github has that report, yet they are being evasive about it's contents. Air that stuff out. Stating that the allegations are unfounded at the same time as revealing that undisclosed mistakes in judgement occurred, combined with pushing out a founder: doesn't smell right.
- lkd 13y ago
  False. We have absolutely no confirmation that any particular allegation that Horvath made has any merit whatsoever. And we will not have such confirmation unless the matter is brought to (and resolved in) a court of law.
stcredzero 13y ago
The Geek Feminism Wiki has a wide range of resources such as an explanation of why sexualized environments are harmful to women. Sexualized environments harmful? Color me curious! So I read the referenced page: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment Those are all cogent points! If any hetero identifying male wants to dispute them, I challenge him to spending a weekend in The Castro neighborhood of SF and write a completely truthful essay chronicling his comfort level. He's either going to end up supporting the above points about sexualized environments by documenting reduced emotional comfort levels, or he's going to demonstrate that he's a paragon of not-giving-a-# -- which while admirable, being one should not be a requirement for working someplace in an office. Keep in mind that going to The Castro is a leisure activity and such a situation is a whole lot more voluntary than going to work. It turns out that many of our ancestors were smart and wise people and not all of them were merely grunting superstitious simpletons. A sublimated sexuality hidden behind a facade of polite society can be a powerful tool for facilitating consensuality. The point being that such social norms can allow one to opt out of activities they don't care to be a part of. Granted, there are also ways in which sublimated sexuality can be used to reduce consensuality though the use of social pressure. Again, the key is consensuality, and whether or not power relationships support or undermine individual freedom, not sexuality in its entirety. It strikes me as odd that sexuality should be wholly removed from such huge swathes of human experience. Not only is this notion odd, but as history demonstrates, it's starkly unrealistic. The kind of polite society that promotes "live and let live" as a communal good arose for good reasons. As always, things that naturally evolve have flaws, but the project of social reform, most feminism included, rests on the underlying assumption that such things can be fixed.
- jonahx 13y ago
  > If any hetero identifying male wants to dispute them, I challenge him to spending a weekend in The Castro neighborhood of SF and write a completely truthful essay chronicling his comfort level. I used to live right near the Castro and spent lots of time there. I also lived in West Hollywood for years. I always felt completely comfortable in both places, and not because I am a paragon of not giving a shit. Sorry, but being looked at or hit on by a man is not, in itself, a traumatic experience. I know your post is probably motivated by empathy, but the above comment comes off as really weird and homophobic.
vampirechicken 13y ago
Where there is arbitration, there is seldom justice.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  Often, "arbitration" is used as window-dressing for a severe power imbalance to continue. Arbitration only deserves to be called such if it's entered into voluntarily by two parties with good intentions.
  - baddox 13y ago
    How could GitHub initiate anything better than a third-party investigation? Is there some way to turn yourself in for an alleged crime, then deny that you committed the crime and go through the government court system? It's not clear to me what GitHub could have done better.
    - stcredzero 13y ago
      I'm not saying anything one way or another about what GitHub did or didn't do. It's my general observation that "arbitration" is often other than what it says on the tin. This comes from personal experience, and I think it's a valuable general observation. I hope that you are not coming at this from some kind of "you're either for us or against us" standpoint.
    - vampirechicken 13y ago
      Arbitration is not about justice, it is about the appearance of justice, while being incredibly stacked against one party. Arbitrators are paid by the party that demands arbitration (the corporation eg. cable, wireless, etc). If the arbitrator does not side with the party that is paying their fees, they get called on to arbitrate less and less, until they are no longer employed as an arbitrator. That is a perverse disincentive to ever find against the party paying your fees. It is much cheaper than going to court, and and you win 90% of the time. What's not to love?
panzi 13y ago
I might be biased to the meaning of significant because I had a course of statistics once, but isn't the person in question stepping down a significant change? It is a significant change in his life. These seem to be pretty vague demands. What do they think would be a significant change?
facepalm 13y ago
I have enough faith in women to think that for every radical feminist who jumps ship because of this, two reasonable women will enter IT. Who knows, actual female developers might be put off by radical feminism using them for their agenda.
- pyronite 13y ago
  Your hypothesis is that two "reasonable women" will enter IT as a result of Julie Ann Horvath and another former employee feeling ostracized at GitHub?
  - facepalm 13y ago
    I don't know what happened with JAH, but it seems obvious that the Ada initiative judges without having any inside information. That's the real issue. Besides, it seems possible that women who work at GitHub don't quit because JAH is gone, if some accounts are true (ie the Jane Doe on Medium article). But you are right, the JAH incident itself probably doesn't motivate anyone to join IT (neither men nor woman). Then again, perhaps eliminating drama from IT (by eliminating drama people) will in the long run entice those women to join.
- discodave 13y ago
  Please define "radical feminism" and how it applies to this situation?
  - facepalm 13y ago
    In this case one obvious aspect is having the basic belief that "a woman complaining of abuse is always in the right".
    - comrh 13y ago
      The basic belief is "someone complaining of abuse" is always taken seriously. Further, this is concerning a person with a power disadvantage in their environment who is going to be subject to the array of classic silencing techniques that criticize not her argument but her person. Interestingly enough you're using one as well classifying the response as "radical feminism". This discredits their position because they were "too aggressive". It is another argument that adds nothing because it attacks their tone and not ideas.
CoachRufus87 13y ago
"We will work to wind down the free private repository partnership in a way that causes minimum harm to the women using them." Taking away their free private repos seems pretty harmful.
- lkd 13y ago
  The irony of the situation is that AI is doing more harm to more women than anyone at GitHub ever did.
baddox 13y ago
> It was shortly followed by a blog post from the resigning co-founder which included a clear threat of legal action against anyone who said he or his wife had engaged in gender-based harassment or discrimination. Actually, it was a clear threat of legal action against anyone who made false accusations.
- notwedtm 13y ago
  Which, if we are to believe the results of the investigation, would be everyone.
quadrangle 13y ago
This was ill-conceived from the get-go. GitHub is proprietary and encouraging people (women or men) to get private repos there is not a service to Open Source.
mrsaint 13y ago
It's safe to say that GitHub won't depend on the partnership with Ada... private repositories were offered for free to select individuals/women - that doesn't sound like a big deal to me, at least. If anyone is looking for private repos for free, they could get them @ https://bitbucket.org/ https://bitbucket.org/.
- railsdude 13y ago
  Except that feminists doesn't seem to like BitBucket as well.
  - smacktoward 13y ago
    It's a good thing we have a user named "railsdude" here to explain to us what feminists think.
    - liedra 13y ago
      Men can (and should be!) feminists too.
yeukhon 13y ago
Just curious, who makes the decision? The people who run the Initiative? What about the members? Are the majority of members and participants (people who benefit from the initiative's works) fully in supporting this break up? Have they asked people to vote or not? Why do their opinions not matter? I don't know what kind of work they do with Github other than hosting repository and sponsorship -- which means it doesn't stop people fro using Github or mentioning github.com/<username>/<reponame> on slides. So what's the problem with the report? Are they not happy with the whole "third-party independent investigation"? (Someone said in other HN threads that the investigators didn't reach out to Horvath until the end of the investigation). That shouldn't be a good reason to quit the partnership. Are they angry at the "[we, github] found mistakes" (which probably means very poor management)? That's still not a good enough reason to quit. Every comapny has some kind of problems too. Or are they fully convinced that Github is lying and Horvath is telling the truth? Which one? This is probably the worst reason to quit partnership. So, which one?
danso 13y ago
This is disappointing. OK so let's ignore Github's investigation; what other sides to the story are there besides what the accuser told TechCrunch and what she alludes to in tweets? If Github needs further punishment, this has to be instigated by the accuser, just like it would be in a civil/criminal case. Horvath has said that she believes the treatment of her was outright illegal -- and that she has evidence of this. This is not a situation in which an accuser/whistleblower backs down because they don't want to be exposed...Horvath, to her credit, has put her name to these allegations. But alleging is not enough to mandate a punishment. Since Github has also made its defense and is standing by it....are we supposed to side automatically with the accuser? Github is now in a "have you stopped beating your wife?" predicament. I don't see how the Ada Initiative can pronounce such a judgment unless they are privy to whatever decisive evidence Horvath is currently holding on to.
notwedtm 13y ago
Wasn't their an anonymous posting from within Github that said the Horvath was spreading lies about Theresa sleeping with other men, and that her baby wasn't Tom's? That seems like at least a motivation for the actions, and at the far end of the spectrum, a reason for it.
- arjie 13y ago
  There is an anonymous posting that said that the other anonymous posting is false. http://pastebin.com/tpMF2G0A http://pastebin.com/tpMF2G0A
noir_lord 13y ago
Seems like a strange decision unless they know more than said in this blog post to end a relationship that could benefit both sides. That said I'm fiercely opposed to organisation's like the Ada Initiative since they are inherently discriminatory in nature, I'm in favor of Egalitarianism. If you don't think they are discriminatory imagine - ---- "The Turing Initiative - Supporting men in open technology and culture" "The Turing Initiative welcomes men of all kinds, and specifically welcomes trans men and genderqueer men. We strive to be an intersectional social justice organization." --- We shouldn't be demanding equality for one group or another we should be demanding it for everyone. Ada Initiative - Support all people in open technology, That I would donate to.
- inklesspen 13y ago
  And if computer science were a field in which men have historically been underrepresented, with company after company having culture issues about "femprogramming culture", your Turing Initiative might have a reason to actually exist.
  - noir_lord 13y ago
    Even if it did have a reason to exist it would still be discriminatory which was my actual point.
roeme 13y ago
To anyone criticising their decision for whatever reason; the key lies in the phrase The sum of these events make it impossible for Ada Initiative (...) To me, this reads that it's not about who has done what etc. But rather that one doesn't want to keep working with a company where an affair like this goes down the way it has. As some agreed before here on HN; github, or rather the participants in this affair acted, or seemed to act, like a bunch of immature teenagers. It's understandable that this irks business partners, as its simply not professional - usually what business is about (Or more often, pretends to be. But that's not too relevant here). Especially when your mission includes social/society topics, like the Ada Initiative. I don't know, maybe it's the Ada Init. acting immature here. Or maybe the whole "echo chamber" around github et al needs to grow up (seriously, usually such FUD, dirty laundry, who-kisses-whom etc. is written about in very low grade magazines, one would assume such are not read by techies/hackers). It would explain why many articles related to that are consistently upvoted (thankfully, they seem to vanish rather fast as well). Or maybe there's a real, general problem of our/this society lying below all that; but I doubt that. (Not that there are no problems at all). But serious discussion about this should go to a social science HN, in my opinion. I would prefer if we all could nudge the scope of HN back to tech stuff (or fields where YC backs startups, since it seems to expand since recently). Cause I'm getting a little fed up with all this excitement and talk about failed social interaction between some other humans, which in contrast to the billions of other similar mishaps on this planet, just happen(ed) to be affiliated with a company whose products are often used around here.
whiterabbit2 12y ago
So, women who signed up to those repositories had no say in this decision? I think they should've been asked first, what THEY want. Some projects might have contributors on GitHub. Ada Initiative promises to accommodate those people, but why weren't they talked to and accommodated before making this decision? It's so much for Ada Initiative "helping" women treating them merely like pawns.

103 points by gortok 13y ago

Co-founders wife who doesn't even work for GitHub was running the show and had argument with another woman there who happens to work for GitHub. Ada Initiative conclusion: SEXISM!

diego 13y ago

This reads like a prejudicial post, based on a biased interpretation of unclear events. Not what I would expect from an organization whose goal is to fight against prejudice.

maldeh 13y ago
The post only deals with ending association, and doesn't make any direct accusation against Github. As a feminist organization devoted to protecting women in the workplace from similar (but not necessarily identical) circumstances, it's only prudent to distance themselves at this point of time regardless of whether Github's actions were truly gender-biased.
- diego 13y ago
  "The sum of these events make it impossible for Ada Initiative to partner with GitHub at this time." Why? It doesn't follow from the description of the events. Have they spoken with someone at Github? Are they being pressured by their members or other people? Do they have evidence that GH is worse in those respects than other organizations they partner with? Is ending the partnership the best possible course of action both for their cause and for their members?
  - maldeh 13y ago
    Surely one doesn't need to be pressured by third parties to make a judgment call on this situation? You must concede that there is some polarization in the debate over Github's reaction, with positive nods about the company's work environment and promptness, and some consternation over the legal posturing. Again, Ada is simply saying they cannot continue association with Github. The statement you quoted explicitly states that there were several variables to consider, including their own image as a protector of women's rights (their charter is not to end ALL prejudice, it's specifically aimed at prejudice against women).
- waseem_ 13y ago
  Shouldn't it be 'innocent until proven guilty' in this case? This certainly spreads some negative advertisement for Github. If the case is not clear, they should wait till it's clear.
  - ihuman 13y ago
    "Innocent until proven guilty" often only applies to legality, and not people's mentality.
    - lkd 13y ago
      Correct. According to SJWs, straight white men are guilty until they're proven innocent, and even afterwards, they're still guilty somehow.
    - baddox 13y ago
      It only has legal status in government courts. But it can still be good advice in a broader context.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        It can be, but it isn't always. The reason for the presumption of innocence combined with the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal trials is a judgement about the desirability of the particular effects that can be expected with and without that principal. It cannot automatically be assumed that those considerations generalize to other contexts -- they must be considered in each context.
        baddox 13y ago
        In the broader context, like in the legal context, it's not a claim about what is true, but rather a claim about what we should believe (or more appropriately, how we should treat the accused) given the evidence we have. You don't say "this person definitely didn't commit a crime, because we don't have evidence," but rather "we don't consider this person guilty, and thus don't punish him or her, until we get some evidence."
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- ssmoot 13y ago
  > "It is also contrary to our principles to be silent when our existing sponsors and collaborators' actions consistently do not support our mission." This seems verifiably false since Github did in fact sponsor conferences, efforts and perks. So one bad story, that the details aren't entirely clear on, that resulted in the ousting of a founder, means Github, despite going out of their way to put money on the table to support the cause, isn't worthy? "With friends like these..." seems apt.
- sitkack 13y ago
  And they can patch things up later. Makes total sense in the now term.
- baddox 13y ago
  There are direct accusations against Github: > It was shortly followed by a blog post from the resigning co-founder which included a clear threat of legal action against anyone who said he or his wife had engaged in gender-based harassment or discrimination. That's a direct accusation, and a false one. The threat was against false accusations. > The sum of these events make it impossible for Ada Initiative to partner with GitHub at this time. ... We will not accept future sponsorships from or partnerships with GitHub unless the situation changes significantly. ... We are working hard to create a world in which women can participate in open source software, Wikipedia, and other areas of open technology and culture without harassment, intimidation, or discrimination. Sometimes this means refusing to partner with or accept sponsorship from specific people or organizations. It is also contrary to our principles to be silent when our existing sponsors and collaborators' actions consistently do not support our mission. It doesn't get much more direct than this.
  - pyre 13y ago
    > The threat was against false accusations. If legal action is taken, of course it will be on the grounds that the accusations are false. Whether the accusation is actually true or false, may not have any bearing on whether or not legal action is taken.
    - baddox 13y ago
      But the accused knows whether or not the accusations are true, and the claim is that legal action will be taken only if the accusations are false. This is pretty normal. False accusations, especially about serious crimes or misconduct, are usually taken very seriously.
      - makomk 13y ago
        I'm sure she'd be very reassured by the fact that, after a drawn out battle and legal fees she can ill-afford, she'd probably defeat the lawsuit in the end. Maybe. Assuming she can both prove her claims to the satisfaction of the courts and afford the lawyers to do so.
- whiterabbit2 12y ago
  Where those women "to protect" are treated like babies who have no say of their own.
slowmotiony 13y ago
Are you surprised?
bicknergseng 13y ago
Seems to me like a decision that will not help to further the initiative's goals. Feels like diplomacy by isolation and cutting communication.
- sheetjs 13y ago
  > The Ada Initiative supports women in open technology and culture through activities like producing codes of conduct and anti-harassment policies, advocating for gender diversity, teaching allies, and hosting conferences for women in open tech/culture. If there is a sense that Github doesn't have a proper anti-harassment policy in place, distancing certainly doesn't hurt the initiative's goals
  - bicknergseng 13y ago
    I would argue the correct path of action would be to work with Github to develop a proper anti-harassment policy, rather than cutting ties. While the harassment incident is certainly bad (if unclear), Github has done other things and shown a willingness to do more to further Ada's goals. Now, maybe there is more to the story, but the post didn't seem to reveal it.
jarrett 13y ago
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the post, but I understood it to say that what the authors perceived as a "threat of legal action" was a significant factor in their decision. I presume that is a reference to Tom Preston-Werner's comment: "we are prepared to fight any further false claims on this matter to the full extent of the law."[1] Just to be clear: I'm only stating my interpretation of Ada's comments. I know nothing of what actually transpired at GitHub, thus I have not formed an opinion about it. Nor do I claim to know whether anyone threatened or intended to threaten legal action. [1] http://tom.preston-werner.com/2014/04/21/farewell-github-hello-immersive-computing.html http://tom.preston-werner.com/2014/04/21/farewell-github-hel... Edit: In case it wasn't clear from the above post, I'm not taking sides with or against Ada, Github, or anyone else. I'm stating what I took to be Ada's reasoning, but not endorsing nor criticizing that reasoning.
- ssmoot 13y ago
  Why should such a threat (if you were to interpret it that way), from the very person who was ousted reflect poorly on Github? What does AI expect Github to even do about that? It seems completely irrational.
  - jarrett 13y ago
    Certainly a fair question. Note that I'm not taking sides with or against either Ada or Github. Just saying how I interpreted Ada's comments.
aaronem 13y ago
I suppose it depends on the particular prejudice in question.
sneak 13y ago
The Ada Initiative is a notorious drama-generating concern troll organization. They are not a positive force and this sort of behavior is unsurprising from them.
baddox 13y ago
Where do they say that their goal is to fight against prejudice? I scanned their about pages, and my impression is that their primary goal is to support women.
- jarrett 13y ago
  Fighting anti-female prejudice could conceivably be part of a strategy for supporting women. At least, it wouldn't be surprising if an organization dedicated to supporting group X fought prejudice against group X.
  - baddox 13y ago
    There's obviously some overlap, but they're not equivalent.
dbloom 13y ago
Your criticism is equally applicable to any advocacy organization that distances themselves from an alleged situation that they morally oppose. For example, would you say the same thing about EFF and ACLU speakers canceling their RSA conference talks, due to a "biased interpretation of unclear events" of RSA collaborating with the NSA?
- danso 13y ago
  Sorry, but that's not the case here. Horvath alleges that illegal behavior took place. Github has said that their investigation has found no such thing, leaving things at an impasse until Horvath produces the evidence that she claims to have. The NSA likewise says that no illegal behavior took place. Independent investigations by other arms of the government, including the Senate, have found otherwise. Furthermore, some of the behavior that the EFF and ACLU object to -- such as the collection of metadata -- the NSA do not deny that they are doing it. They only claim that such activity is legal and beneficial. Until Github takes a stand or makes an assertion with which we can agree or disagree with, the situations are not the same. Right now, Github is basically being asked "Have you stopped sexually harassing your female employees yet?" and its refusal to answer that question is apparently grounds to judge Github.
  - dbloom 13y ago
    Thanks for your feedback, but please re-read my example more carefully. In my example, I talked about organizations distancing themselves from RSA (the company), not the NSA (the US govt agency). And as far as I know, no formal, independent investigation has found RSA guilty of allegations that they knowingly weakened their encryption after the NSA paid them to do so. So it doesn't meet the criteria you just mentioned.
    - danso 13y ago
      Ah, damn my misreading of initials. But to your more specific scenario...we are still talking about a much different level of evidence. OK, let's agree that RSA has not been found "guilty" by any authority. But the allegations do not come from just...well, whoever we might call the original accuser (Snowden? Greenwald?). Independent reports have alleged substantial claims and findings. For example, this is via Reuters, who is also sourcing reports to a group of academics: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/31/us-usa-security-nsa-rsa-idUSBREA2U0TY20140331 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/31/us-usa-security-ns... > (Reuters) - Security industry pioneer RSA adopted not just one but two encryption tools developed by the U.S. National Security Agency, greatly increasing the spy agency's ability to eavesdrop on some Internet communications, according to a team of academic researchers. Reuters reported in December that the NSA had paid RSA $10 million to make a now-discredited cryptography system the default in software used by a wide range of Internet and computer security programs. The system, called Dual Elliptic Curve, was a random number generator, but it had a deliberate flaw - or "back door" - that allowed the NSA to crack the encryption. A group of professors from Johns Hopkins, the University of Wisconsin, the University of Illinois and elsewhere now say they have discovered that a second NSA tool exacerbated the RSA software's vulnerability Even more importantly, RSA did not issue a denial (though I concede that they may have later on, I just haven't googled it yet)...they refused to comment even on the possibility that the NSA made a payment to them regarding the controversial issue. > We could have been more skeptical of NSA's intentions," RSA Chief Technologist Sam Curry told Reuters. "We trusted them because they are charged with security for the U.S. government and U.S. critical infrastructure." Curry declined to say if the government had paid RSA to incorporate Extended Random in its BSafe security kit, which also housed Dual Elliptic Curve. This is quite different than Github. Github not only commented (and took the obvious stance that harassment is wrong) on the allegations a day or so after they were public, but they have launched an independent investigation, and they have asserted that the investigation did not uncover anything for them to cop to. Now you may say that their investigation was a farce...but this, again, is where things stand until more accusers/evidence come out. And it is at this state of uncertainty that Ada Initiative has decided to take a strong position.
dsl 13y ago
> This reads like a prejudicial post It is. Do some background research. The Ada Initiative is a radical feminist organization and does more harm than good.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Not really. As a small nonprofit, Ada initiative probably doesn't have the resources to deal with controversy and so it's better to cut ties than to put itself into a charged political situation which would threaten its mission.
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  Ada initiative received various resources from Github on multiple occasions so the outcome is that they have less resources now.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Github isn't the only provider of resources out there. Presumably the opportunity cost of breaking off relationswith Github seems to be lower than the opportunity cost of maintaining them. Also, the choice I mentioned was not about whether to maximize resources but about how to sutain its mission. For all I know a large portion of the membership might have been threatening to quit the organization. My basic point is that it's rarely profitable to be in the middle of someone else's bitter conflict. Given AI's mission and the existence of intense bad feeling on both sides following an accusation of workplace sexism, it's easier and smarter for the organization to just walk way from the whole situation rather than taking sides in a conflict whose parameters they don'tunderstand. I have no opinion on the whole Horvath/Github situation because I simply don't have enough information to judge whose version of events is truthful, and I don't even have a GitHub account so I don't care much either way. I'm just pointing out that a small nonprofit might have good reasons for not wanting to be connected to a potentially toxic situation.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  Haha, very subtle. For a moment I thought you were serious.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

b1naryth1ef 13y ago

Ironically the post reads extremely sexist. "We're offended by due process! Ahhhh the female lost; must be sexism!". I'm not arguing Github hasn't handled this situation as well as possible, but really?

WalterSear 13y ago
The fact that they handled it at all, did so publicly, removed key personnel who were involved, and yet were sanctioned for doing so, shows you the poor quality of dialog we have regarding gender relations in tech. And the counterproductive, zero-sum game that modern gender advocates get wrapped up in playing - that is a cause of it.
- b1naryth1ef 13y ago
  The thing that frustrates me is that the only reason we can even sit here and discuss this properly is that Github is such an open company. If someone comes out of Microsoft and Google (low and behold there have been multiple cases), the best you can expect is a response of "We've handled the situation internally, and those involved have been disciplined in a way <company> deems proper".
  - joshstrange 13y ago
    >> Github is such an open company Did we read the same blog post [0]? While I agree that we might have seen a little more from GitHub than we would have from MS/Google their response to the situation was extremely lacking IMHO. [0] https://github.com/blog/1823-results-of-the-github-investigation https://github.com/blog/1823-results-of-the-github-investiga...
    - clavalle 13y ago
      An independent third party investigation into the matter seems like a pretty solid response. What other steps would you suggest they have taken that would have constituted a satisfactory response?

GUNHED_158 13y ago

Reading the whole story, couldn't find any sign of gender biased action from GitHub.

waterlesscloud 13y ago
I haven't followed this too closely, but GitHub got rid of the people involved, didn't they? So why break off now? I know I'm missing something here.
- lkd 13y ago
  You can never please SJWs, no matter how much you bend backwards. They'll always find something to complain about. That's the meaning of their entire existence. That's what you're missing.
- GUNHED_158 13y ago
  What I'm trying to say is that there was no "gender biased" activity involved, although there were some mistakes done by people who are not working there any more. As it seems clear from the accusers notes.
- makomk 13y ago
  They got rid of one of the people involved who was acting in a grossly unprofessional way. They promoted the guy she complained was retaliating against her professionally for refusing to date him.

some_person 13y ago

This seems like a weird move to take. From what I can tell, there's no clear evidence of gender-related wrongdoing* . There is one person's strong allegations of it, and a handful of accounts saying otherwise (of mixed trustworthiness). So, whether you believe there was gender-related wrongdoing depends entirely on whether you believe Julie Ann Horvath or an independent investigator, or neither. As such, it seems like the only reasonable conclusion for an outside party considering an action related to github (going to work there, partnering with them, or even just using their product) is "we don't know." The only way we could know, with any actionable level of certainty, would be if this went to court. Until that happens, though, any punitive action we take (like boycotting github, or ending partnerships with them), is based on a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach founded in a single person's accusation. That reeks of witchunting, and I'm more than a little concerned by it. * Everything github has said seems to indicate only non-gender-related wrongdoing, specifically the founder's wife pressuring (unintentionally, according to her) employees into helping with her charity.

zhemao 13y ago

Really? Ada Initiative is going to throw away a partnership that was beneficial to them and their constituents because of unproven allegations of harassment by a founder and his wife against a single employee? If Github was truly hostile towards women, why would they support the Ada Initiative in the first place? Sponsoring two conferences "to support women in open technology and culture" is not something a misogynistic organization would do. I do not envy Github's PR staff. It seems like they are going to have a hell of a time repairing the damage from this incident.

comrh 13y ago
Github as a corporate entity and Github as a cultural place to work are different things. You can still have misogyny in your organization while the company promotes the opposite.
- rjknight 13y ago
  Indeed. To borrow a phrase from Ralph Waldo Emerson: "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons"[1]. If you do have a misogynistic workplace then sponsoring anti-misogynist causes may be a way of covering that up (in environmental circles this is known as "greenwashing"). [1] http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/31953/the-louder-he-talked-of-his-honor-the-faster-we-counted-our-spoons http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/31953/the-louder-...
Wilya 13y ago
> Sponsoring two conferences "to support women in open technology and culture" is not something a misogynistic organization would do. Of course they would. No organization is likely to official advertise that they are hostile towards women, and sponsoring this kind of events is an easy PR operation. That says absolutely nothing about the day-to-day situation within the company.
sitkack 13y ago
Who said they were throwing it away? Distancing one's self is not burning a bridge. I thought the press release was very mature and thought out. The Ada Initiative's goal isn't to help github grow up, it is to help women and girls in tech. And yes, one always has to sacrifice something on principle, otherwise they wouldn't be principles, just more profitable choices.

lkd 13y ago

So they were leeching money and resources from GitHub, and using them in a sexist manner, and they're not going to do that anymore? That'll show 'em!

rjknight 13y ago

This is a tough one. We have Horvath's allegations, and we have confirmation from Github that at least some of them were true. Clearly, bad things happened and the result is the resignation of a former CEO and founder, so it's not as though there have been no consequences. I would be interested to know which allegations the Ada Initiative think have not been addressed, and how they would like them to be addressed.

Rantenki 13y ago
Do we really expect that any findings of wrongdoing would be publicized? If their audit publicized that sexual or gender based harassment had occurred, that opens them up to a pretty serious lawsuit. This outcome is pretty much the only one you can expect, regardless of the real events. Also, the ADA initiative doesn't really have a choice here either. Either draw a hard line, or look like they aren't able set the same standards that they ask from others. Finally, if the investigation at Github turned up real mistakes of judgement, why weren't they itemized? We are left guessing what the investigator found. Github has that report, yet they are being evasive about it's contents. Air that stuff out. Stating that the allegations are unfounded at the same time as revealing that undisclosed mistakes in judgement occurred, combined with pushing out a founder: doesn't smell right.
lkd 13y ago
False. We have absolutely no confirmation that any particular allegation that Horvath made has any merit whatsoever. And we will not have such confirmation unless the matter is brought to (and resolved in) a court of law.

stcredzero 13y ago

The Geek Feminism Wiki has a wide range of resources such as an explanation of why sexualized environments are harmful to women. Sexualized environments harmful? Color me curious! So I read the referenced page: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment Those are all cogent points! If any hetero identifying male wants to dispute them, I challenge him to spending a weekend in The Castro neighborhood of SF and write a completely truthful essay chronicling his comfort level. He's either going to end up supporting the above points about sexualized environments by documenting reduced emotional comfort levels, or he's going to demonstrate that he's a paragon of not-giving-a-# -- which while admirable, being one should not be a requirement for working someplace in an office. Keep in mind that going to The Castro is a leisure activity and such a situation is a whole lot more voluntary than going to work. It turns out that many of our ancestors were smart and wise people and not all of them were merely grunting superstitious simpletons. A sublimated sexuality hidden behind a facade of polite society can be a powerful tool for facilitating consensuality. The point being that such social norms can allow one to opt out of activities they don't care to be a part of. Granted, there are also ways in which sublimated sexuality can be used to reduce consensuality though the use of social pressure. Again, the key is consensuality, and whether or not power relationships support or undermine individual freedom, not sexuality in its entirety. It strikes me as odd that sexuality should be wholly removed from such huge swathes of human experience. Not only is this notion odd, but as history demonstrates, it's starkly unrealistic. The kind of polite society that promotes "live and let live" as a communal good arose for good reasons. As always, things that naturally evolve have flaws, but the project of social reform, most feminism included, rests on the underlying assumption that such things can be fixed.

jonahx 13y ago
> If any hetero identifying male wants to dispute them, I challenge him to spending a weekend in The Castro neighborhood of SF and write a completely truthful essay chronicling his comfort level. I used to live right near the Castro and spent lots of time there. I also lived in West Hollywood for years. I always felt completely comfortable in both places, and not because I am a paragon of not giving a shit. Sorry, but being looked at or hit on by a man is not, in itself, a traumatic experience. I know your post is probably motivated by empathy, but the above comment comes off as really weird and homophobic.

vampirechicken 13y ago

Where there is arbitration, there is seldom justice.

stcredzero 13y ago
Often, "arbitration" is used as window-dressing for a severe power imbalance to continue. Arbitration only deserves to be called such if it's entered into voluntarily by two parties with good intentions.
- baddox 13y ago
  How could GitHub initiate anything better than a third-party investigation? Is there some way to turn yourself in for an alleged crime, then deny that you committed the crime and go through the government court system? It's not clear to me what GitHub could have done better.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    I'm not saying anything one way or another about what GitHub did or didn't do. It's my general observation that "arbitration" is often other than what it says on the tin. This comes from personal experience, and I think it's a valuable general observation. I hope that you are not coming at this from some kind of "you're either for us or against us" standpoint.
  - vampirechicken 13y ago
    Arbitration is not about justice, it is about the appearance of justice, while being incredibly stacked against one party. Arbitrators are paid by the party that demands arbitration (the corporation eg. cable, wireless, etc). If the arbitrator does not side with the party that is paying their fees, they get called on to arbitrate less and less, until they are no longer employed as an arbitrator. That is a perverse disincentive to ever find against the party paying your fees. It is much cheaper than going to court, and and you win 90% of the time. What's not to love?

panzi 13y ago

I might be biased to the meaning of significant because I had a course of statistics once, but isn't the person in question stepping down a significant change? It is a significant change in his life. These seem to be pretty vague demands. What do they think would be a significant change?

facepalm 13y ago

I have enough faith in women to think that for every radical feminist who jumps ship because of this, two reasonable women will enter IT. Who knows, actual female developers might be put off by radical feminism using them for their agenda.

pyronite 13y ago
Your hypothesis is that two "reasonable women" will enter IT as a result of Julie Ann Horvath and another former employee feeling ostracized at GitHub?
- facepalm 13y ago
  I don't know what happened with JAH, but it seems obvious that the Ada initiative judges without having any inside information. That's the real issue. Besides, it seems possible that women who work at GitHub don't quit because JAH is gone, if some accounts are true (ie the Jane Doe on Medium article). But you are right, the JAH incident itself probably doesn't motivate anyone to join IT (neither men nor woman). Then again, perhaps eliminating drama from IT (by eliminating drama people) will in the long run entice those women to join.
discodave 13y ago
Please define "radical feminism" and how it applies to this situation?
- facepalm 13y ago
  In this case one obvious aspect is having the basic belief that "a woman complaining of abuse is always in the right".
  - comrh 13y ago
    The basic belief is "someone complaining of abuse" is always taken seriously. Further, this is concerning a person with a power disadvantage in their environment who is going to be subject to the array of classic silencing techniques that criticize not her argument but her person. Interestingly enough you're using one as well classifying the response as "radical feminism". This discredits their position because they were "too aggressive". It is another argument that adds nothing because it attacks their tone and not ideas.

CoachRufus87 13y ago

"We will work to wind down the free private repository partnership in a way that causes minimum harm to the women using them." Taking away their free private repos seems pretty harmful.

lkd 13y ago
The irony of the situation is that AI is doing more harm to more women than anyone at GitHub ever did.

baddox 13y ago

> It was shortly followed by a blog post from the resigning co-founder which included a clear threat of legal action against anyone who said he or his wife had engaged in gender-based harassment or discrimination. Actually, it was a clear threat of legal action against anyone who made false accusations.

notwedtm 13y ago
Which, if we are to believe the results of the investigation, would be everyone.

quadrangle 13y ago

This was ill-conceived from the get-go. GitHub is proprietary and encouraging people (women or men) to get private repos there is not a service to Open Source.

mrsaint 13y ago

It's safe to say that GitHub won't depend on the partnership with Ada... private repositories were offered for free to select individuals/women - that doesn't sound like a big deal to me, at least. If anyone is looking for private repos for free, they could get them @ https://bitbucket.org/ https://bitbucket.org/.

railsdude 13y ago
Except that feminists doesn't seem to like BitBucket as well.
- smacktoward 13y ago
  It's a good thing we have a user named "railsdude" here to explain to us what feminists think.
  - liedra 13y ago
    Men can (and should be!) feminists too.

yeukhon 13y ago

Just curious, who makes the decision? The people who run the Initiative? What about the members? Are the majority of members and participants (people who benefit from the initiative's works) fully in supporting this break up? Have they asked people to vote or not? Why do their opinions not matter? I don't know what kind of work they do with Github other than hosting repository and sponsorship -- which means it doesn't stop people fro using Github or mentioning github.com/<username>/<reponame> on slides. So what's the problem with the report? Are they not happy with the whole "third-party independent investigation"? (Someone said in other HN threads that the investigators didn't reach out to Horvath until the end of the investigation). That shouldn't be a good reason to quit the partnership. Are they angry at the "[we, github] found mistakes" (which probably means very poor management)? That's still not a good enough reason to quit. Every comapny has some kind of problems too. Or are they fully convinced that Github is lying and Horvath is telling the truth? Which one? This is probably the worst reason to quit partnership. So, which one?

danso 13y ago

This is disappointing. OK so let's ignore Github's investigation; what other sides to the story are there besides what the accuser told TechCrunch and what she alludes to in tweets? If Github needs further punishment, this has to be instigated by the accuser, just like it would be in a civil/criminal case. Horvath has said that she believes the treatment of her was outright illegal -- and that she has evidence of this. This is not a situation in which an accuser/whistleblower backs down because they don't want to be exposed...Horvath, to her credit, has put her name to these allegations. But alleging is not enough to mandate a punishment. Since Github has also made its defense and is standing by it....are we supposed to side automatically with the accuser? Github is now in a "have you stopped beating your wife?" predicament. I don't see how the Ada Initiative can pronounce such a judgment unless they are privy to whatever decisive evidence Horvath is currently holding on to.

notwedtm 13y ago

Wasn't their an anonymous posting from within Github that said the Horvath was spreading lies about Theresa sleeping with other men, and that her baby wasn't Tom's? That seems like at least a motivation for the actions, and at the far end of the spectrum, a reason for it.

arjie 13y ago
There is an anonymous posting that said that the other anonymous posting is false. http://pastebin.com/tpMF2G0A http://pastebin.com/tpMF2G0A

noir_lord 13y ago

Seems like a strange decision unless they know more than said in this blog post to end a relationship that could benefit both sides. That said I'm fiercely opposed to organisation's like the Ada Initiative since they are inherently discriminatory in nature, I'm in favor of Egalitarianism. If you don't think they are discriminatory imagine - ---- "The Turing Initiative - Supporting men in open technology and culture" "The Turing Initiative welcomes men of all kinds, and specifically welcomes trans men and genderqueer men. We strive to be an intersectional social justice organization." --- We shouldn't be demanding equality for one group or another we should be demanding it for everyone. Ada Initiative - Support all people in open technology, That I would donate to.

inklesspen 13y ago
And if computer science were a field in which men have historically been underrepresented, with company after company having culture issues about "femprogramming culture", your Turing Initiative might have a reason to actually exist.
- noir_lord 13y ago
  Even if it did have a reason to exist it would still be discriminatory which was my actual point.

roeme 13y ago

To anyone criticising their decision for whatever reason; the key lies in the phrase The sum of these events make it impossible for Ada Initiative (...) To me, this reads that it's not about who has done what etc. But rather that one doesn't want to keep working with a company where an affair like this goes down the way it has. As some agreed before here on HN; github, or rather the participants in this affair acted, or seemed to act, like a bunch of immature teenagers. It's understandable that this irks business partners, as its simply not professional - usually what business is about (Or more often, pretends to be. But that's not too relevant here). Especially when your mission includes social/society topics, like the Ada Initiative. I don't know, maybe it's the Ada Init. acting immature here. Or maybe the whole "echo chamber" around github et al needs to grow up (seriously, usually such FUD, dirty laundry, who-kisses-whom etc. is written about in very low grade magazines, one would assume such are not read by techies/hackers). It would explain why many articles related to that are consistently upvoted (thankfully, they seem to vanish rather fast as well). Or maybe there's a real, general problem of our/this society lying below all that; but I doubt that. (Not that there are no problems at all). But serious discussion about this should go to a social science HN, in my opinion. I would prefer if we all could nudge the scope of HN back to tech stuff (or fields where YC backs startups, since it seems to expand since recently). Cause I'm getting a little fed up with all this excitement and talk about failed social interaction between some other humans, which in contrast to the billions of other similar mishaps on this planet, just happen(ed) to be affiliated with a company whose products are often used around here.

whiterabbit2 12y ago

So, women who signed up to those repositories had no say in this decision? I think they should've been asked first, what THEY want. Some projects might have contributors on GitHub. Ada Initiative promises to accommodate those people, but why weren't they talked to and accommodated before making this decision? It's so much for Ada Initiative "helping" women treating them merely like pawns.