7 ms·

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 agai

• maldeh 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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_ 12y 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 12y ago
      "Innocent until proven guilty" often only applies to legality, and not people's mentality.
      • lkd 12y ago
        Correct. According to SJWs, straight white men are guilty until they're proven innocent, and even afterwards, they're still guilty somehow.
      • baddox 12y ago
        It only has legal status in government courts. But it can still be good advice in a broader context.
        • dragonwriter 12y 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 12y 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 12y ago
    [deleted]
  • ssmoot 12y 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 12y ago
    And they can patch things up later. Makes total sense in the now term.
  • baddox 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y ago
  Are you surprised?
• bicknergseng 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y ago
  I suppose it depends on the particular prejudice in question.
• sneak 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y ago
      There's obviously some overlap, but they're not equivalent.
• dbloom 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y ago
    Ada initiative received various resources from Github on multiple occasions so the outcome is that they have less resources now.
    • anigbrowl 12y 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 12y ago
    Haha, very subtle. For a moment I thought you were serious.