3 ms·
> 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 possi
by Guvante 13y 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 13y agoI 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 13y 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.