4 ms·

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

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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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?
      - CJefferson 12y ago
        Told us exactly what the report found.
Guvante 12y ago
> Ahhhh the female lost Did she? The offending member quit, so it isn't really a loss. > I'm not arguing Github hasn't handled this situation as well as possible, but really? The discussion afterwards brought up that many of the witnesses external of GitHub were not contacted, which if true shows that their selection of external auditing used a biased basis to prove no harm was done.
- b1naryth1ef 12y ago
  I mean in the sense that Github found no wrong doing. Regardless of the fact that she quit, and the co-founder left. If you really believe Github investigation was lackluster, that's probably another discussion. My point is simply that the post is inherently sexist, favoring the assumption of wrongdoing rather then a discussion or argument against Github's reasoning/investigation.
  - Guvante 12y ago
    > If you really believe Github investigation was lackluster It doesn't matter if I believe. All I am saying is that the posters could have seen that evidence and used it as their basis. You can't tell a company that already investigated a problem to investigate it again, it would be fruitless. Cutting ties is basically your only choice. > favoring the assumption of wrongdoing rather then a discussion or argument against Github's reasoning/investigation. I repeat my last point. They can't ask Github to investigate something they investigated. It cannot create different results. The problems pointed out are systematic, it isn't like repeating the process will magically remove those problems and find a different result.
rootedbox 12y ago
Ironically. There wasn't due process. Also your fake quote which marginalizes the situation is in fact sexist itself.
- b1naryth1ef 12y ago
  I'd love to hear you argument against Github here? How did they incorrectly handle this situation in your eyes? Also when you get a chance, might wanna check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
  - rootedbox 12y ago
    I understand satire, and I understand sexism. Believe it or not.. you were sexist in your satire. Why would you love to hear my argument against Github here?? I never said I was for or against them. I simply said that your assertion that due process had happened is untrue.

WalterSear 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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?
    - CJefferson 12y ago
      Told us exactly what the report found.

Guvante 12y ago

> Ahhhh the female lost Did she? The offending member quit, so it isn't really a loss. > I'm not arguing Github hasn't handled this situation as well as possible, but really? The discussion afterwards brought up that many of the witnesses external of GitHub were not contacted, which if true shows that their selection of external auditing used a biased basis to prove no harm was done.

b1naryth1ef 12y ago
I mean in the sense that Github found no wrong doing. Regardless of the fact that she quit, and the co-founder left. If you really believe Github investigation was lackluster, that's probably another discussion. My point is simply that the post is inherently sexist, favoring the assumption of wrongdoing rather then a discussion or argument against Github's reasoning/investigation.
- Guvante 12y ago
  > If you really believe Github investigation was lackluster It doesn't matter if I believe. All I am saying is that the posters could have seen that evidence and used it as their basis. You can't tell a company that already investigated a problem to investigate it again, it would be fruitless. Cutting ties is basically your only choice. > favoring the assumption of wrongdoing rather then a discussion or argument against Github's reasoning/investigation. I repeat my last point. They can't ask Github to investigate something they investigated. It cannot create different results. The problems pointed out are systematic, it isn't like repeating the process will magically remove those problems and find a different result.

rootedbox 12y ago

Ironically. There wasn't due process. Also your fake quote which marginalizes the situation is in fact sexist itself.

b1naryth1ef 12y ago
I'd love to hear you argument against Github here? How did they incorrectly handle this situation in your eyes? Also when you get a chance, might wanna check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
- rootedbox 12y ago
  I understand satire, and I understand sexism. Believe it or not.. you were sexist in your satire. Why would you love to hear my argument against Github here?? I never said I was for or against them. I simply said that your assertion that due process had happened is untrue.