4 ms·

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 th

by 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."
- icebraining 12y ago
  Playing Devil's advocate, who's responsible for the case not being clear if not Github? How will waiting help, if the investigation is already over?
- CJefferson 12y ago
  The investigation "did find evidence of mistakes and errors of judgment. In light of these findings, Tom has submitted his resignation, which the company has accepted." That seems entirely guilty (if you want to make it into an issue of guilt)to me. github did have "mistakes and errors of judgment" serious enough that Tom resigned.
  - simplemind 12y ago
    There is a difference between mistakes and errors of judgment and "gender-based harassment or discrimination". Someone may be harassed for a different reason than their gender. For example a personal vendetta or abuse of power vs. systemic discrimination against women (or men or other).
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      Github admits that there was wrongdoing by Github executives, but denies (without details) that any of it was the specific kind for which Github would be legally liable. Its not entirely surprising that people give more weight to the part which constitutes a statement against interest than the part that is clearly self-serving, in the absence of supporting details.
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.

by maldeh 12y ago

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."
icebraining 12y ago
Playing Devil's advocate, who's responsible for the case not being clear if not Github? How will waiting help, if the investigation is already over?
CJefferson 12y ago
The investigation "did find evidence of mistakes and errors of judgment. In light of these findings, Tom has submitted his resignation, which the company has accepted." That seems entirely guilty (if you want to make it into an issue of guilt)to me. github did have "mistakes and errors of judgment" serious enough that Tom resigned.
- simplemind 12y ago
  There is a difference between mistakes and errors of judgment and "gender-based harassment or discrimination". Someone may be harassed for a different reason than their gender. For example a personal vendetta or abuse of power vs. systemic discrimination against women (or men or other).
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    Github admits that there was wrongdoing by Github executives, but denies (without details) that any of it was the specific kind for which Github would be legally liable. Its not entirely surprising that people give more weight to the part which constitutes a statement against interest than the part that is clearly self-serving, in the absence of supporting details.

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.