5 ms·

The investigation found Tom Preston-Werner in his capacity as GitHub’s CEO acted inappropriately, including confrontational conduct, disregard of workplace comp

by gregd 12y ago

The investigation found Tom Preston-Werner in his capacity as GitHub’s CEO acted inappropriately, including confrontational conduct, disregard of workplace complaints, insensitivity to the impact of his spouse's presence in the workplace, and failure to enforce an agreement that his spouse should not work in the office. There were also issues surrounding the solicitation of GitHub employees for non-GitHub business and the inappropriate handling of employee concerns regarding those solicitations. It doesn't insubstantiate them either. TPW acted "inappropriately", which may or may not have been because Julie was a female. I believe that the stress of the CEO (and his wife) on Julie may have contributed to her experience in the workplace overall. I've been under that kind of stress before (not gender-based) and I know that it colored the future dealings I had at that job. Harassment doesn't happen in a vacuum and they shouldn't be considered isolated incidents. Harassment affects us all differently and what some people may be able to brush off, others get affected by, deeply. I almost want to address you calling Julie delusional, but I'm afraid it would only lend credence to you calling her that...

abalone 12y ago
You ignored the part about "They couldn't even find the malicious code removals by 'the guy who she wouldn't let fuck her' that was one of her central claims."
- pyre 12y ago
  Depends on what kind of logs they have. Laying down a couple of assumptions: 1. They only have the git repo history to go on. 2. It's been long enough that errant objects have been garbage collected. It's possible that the code she committed removed via a push that removed it from history entirely (e.g. `git push +old-master:master`). If this push was never reverted, then the commit object would become an orphan that was up for removal at the next garbage collection interval. After that, the incident would absolutely just be 'he said, she said,' and a lack of evidence would not be proof that she was lying.
  - encoderer 12y ago
    Yeah, if they have no backups. Also, they said they looked at both the push log and the commit history.
  - kemayo 12y ago
    Unless the guy was hyper-vigilant about reverting her code (as in, within a few seconds of her pushing her own commit), wouldn't that be a ridiculously noticeable way to do it? Other people would have pulled, and would find themselves inconsistent with the origin repo when they next went to push... Not saying it's impossible, but it seems like it'd have generated some documentation if it happened, probably in the form of people sending out "WTF? Who's pushing history-changes???" emails. Edited to add: Also, the article says they reviewed git push logs, which I imagine would catch this.
    - pyre 12y ago
      > as in, within a few seconds of her pushing her own commit Is it really only possible for a revert to happen 'within a few seconds' to not cause issues? That's a strong statement to make based on little information. It might be true, but the repository in question could also have little traffic, or this could have happened over a weekend. > Also, the article says they reviewed git push logs, which I imagine would catch this. I see. I guess overlooked that (probably just read it as 'commit logs'). In general, I don't understand why they didn't just ask her about the commits in question. If it did happen, she would likely be able to point them in the right direction and at least narrow their search (e.g. 'the revert happened in repository X around these dates'). If she couldn't, then they are no better off, but no worse off either.
      - kemayo 12y ago
        > That's a strong statement to make based on little information. That's a fair point. It'd depend a great deal on how github has their repos set up, and I can't remember seeing anyone talk about that.
  - yawboakye 12y ago
korzun 12y ago
Sure, but you are aware that Julie called out 5 or so people on twitter with 'Do not do any business with them' and not only ruined their professional image but also caused people to man their pitch forks. I mean if you bought the whole bullshit about a lead reverting code (highly visible thing to do) because she would not put out and not because code was.. gasp broken then you are pretty delusional your self.

by gregd 12y ago

abalone 12y ago

You ignored the part about "They couldn't even find the malicious code removals by 'the guy who she wouldn't let fuck her' that was one of her central claims."

pyre 12y ago
Depends on what kind of logs they have. Laying down a couple of assumptions: 1. They only have the git repo history to go on. 2. It's been long enough that errant objects have been garbage collected. It's possible that the code she committed removed via a push that removed it from history entirely (e.g. `git push +old-master:master`). If this push was never reverted, then the commit object would become an orphan that was up for removal at the next garbage collection interval. After that, the incident would absolutely just be 'he said, she said,' and a lack of evidence would not be proof that she was lying.
- encoderer 12y ago
  Yeah, if they have no backups. Also, they said they looked at both the push log and the commit history.
- kemayo 12y ago
  Unless the guy was hyper-vigilant about reverting her code (as in, within a few seconds of her pushing her own commit), wouldn't that be a ridiculously noticeable way to do it? Other people would have pulled, and would find themselves inconsistent with the origin repo when they next went to push... Not saying it's impossible, but it seems like it'd have generated some documentation if it happened, probably in the form of people sending out "WTF? Who's pushing history-changes???" emails. Edited to add: Also, the article says they reviewed git push logs, which I imagine would catch this.
  - pyre 12y ago
    > as in, within a few seconds of her pushing her own commit Is it really only possible for a revert to happen 'within a few seconds' to not cause issues? That's a strong statement to make based on little information. It might be true, but the repository in question could also have little traffic, or this could have happened over a weekend. > Also, the article says they reviewed git push logs, which I imagine would catch this. I see. I guess overlooked that (probably just read it as 'commit logs'). In general, I don't understand why they didn't just ask her about the commits in question. If it did happen, she would likely be able to point them in the right direction and at least narrow their search (e.g. 'the revert happened in repository X around these dates'). If she couldn't, then they are no better off, but no worse off either.
    - kemayo 12y ago
      > That's a strong statement to make based on little information. That's a fair point. It'd depend a great deal on how github has their repos set up, and I can't remember seeing anyone talk about that.
- yawboakye 12y ago

korzun 12y ago

Sure, but you are aware that Julie called out 5 or so people on twitter with 'Do not do any business with them' and not only ruined their professional image but also caused people to man their pitch forks. I mean if you bought the whole bullshit about a lead reverting code (highly visible thing to do) because she would not put out and not because code was.. gasp broken then you are pretty delusional your self.