5 ms·

Back in December 2012, Julie Horvath expressed her desire to have Zach fired. I wonder if these two incidents are actually related. @Holman is my ex-partner.

by sridca 12y ago

Back in December 2012, Julie Horvath expressed her desire to have Zach fired. I wonder if these two incidents are actually related. @Holman is my ex-partner. He was complicit in the actions of both Tom and Theresa Preston-Werner and even admitted to plotting with Theresa Preston-Werner to get women at the company fired. He should be let go from GitHub and I regret being kind to him in previous interviews. http://valleywag.gawker.com/ims-and-email-support-allegations-about-the-toxic-cultu-1567175545 http://valleywag.gawker.com/ims-and-email-support-allegation...

eridius 12y ago
That was my first thought too. But this seems too far after that incident for it to be the cause.
- chuhnk 12y ago
  No. It's a great way to separate one's involvement from the issue. Things like this happen all the time and you don't hear about it because it's treated exactly like this. CEOs are displaced at the top level in a way that makes it look like a natural next step.
  - eridius 12y ago
    If the intent was to make it look like a natural next step, he wouldn't be writing a blog post about how he was fired. If he really was fired for that incident, I'd much prefer GitHub to be open about it and make it clear that was why.
    - chuhnk 12y ago
      He said he was fired, but not how.
      - eridius 12y ago
        Yes. My point was that "being fired" is not the "natural next step" for anyone.
- minimaxir 12y ago
  The investigation into the claims was performed and completed in April 2014. https://github.com/blog/1823-results-of-the-github-investigation https://github.com/blog/1823-results-of-the-github-investiga... I don't believe it would take a year to fire someone.
  - astrodust 12y ago
    There's always the job security factor.
j_baker 12y ago
If it were connected, you would figure the firing would come sooner than two years later. Though it is possible there was another incident.
samstokes 12y ago
Maybe we can keep the speculation and character smearing to another thread? I have no connection to the author, but he's written a very personal post about a subject that isn't often discussed, so I don't feel like this thread is an appropriate place to attack him.
- sridca 12y ago
  My apologies, I didn't mean to attack Zach. I am actually hoping that he was not fired in connection to the Horvath incident.
- NotOscarWilde 12y ago
  It seemed to me the post was tiptoeing around the reason of the dismissal, and the author even alludes to the story behind it with: > Seemingly everyone’s got stories of being stuck under shit managers, or dealing the fallout from things out of their control. I don't support "character smearing" or "attacking" in any way, but as a reader of the post, I would like to know more about the reasons for his firing, even in the form of less-than-reliable internet research -- as long as no attacking takes place.
  - nirvdrum 12y ago
    One of the reasons you usually don't hear about why people get fired is the employee is offered a severance package in exchange for signing a non-disparagement agreement. Usually that agreement cuts both ways, so you're happy to sign it. You get some money to help you decide what's next, while you and your employer exit on as best terms as reasonably possible. The only thing you need to give up is venting on the Internet, which usually wouldn't work out so well for you anyway. Naturally, I don't know what if any arrangement was made here. But that's a big part of why you hardly ever hear about why someone was fired.
    - chimeracoder 12y ago
      > One of the reasons you usually don't hear about why people get fired is the employee is offered a severance package in exchange for signing a non-disparagement agreement. Obligatory: I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Just FYI, nondisparagement agreements have fallen out of favor in recent years, as they're interpreted very narrowly by courts[0]. Even if your company presents you with one (which they may not), you can usually negotiate it out pretty easily. Especially in industries or jobs in which reputation and "social capital" are highly valued, companies are tending to leave these out, because they're actually massive liabilities for both parties, and there are already enough restrictions around defamation, sharing of confidential information, etc., that it's usually not worth the risk. I have no idea what happened in this case, but it's worth mentioning since you bring this up. [0] As in, this blog post would almost certainly violate a standard nondisparagement agreement, even though it's relatively innocuous at first glance!
crag 12y ago
Who cares? The lot of them - a bunch of 5 year olds fighting in the play ground. Don't get me wrong, harassment of any kind should be stamped out. But, this whole "scandal" has turned into something more likely to appear as a headline in a tabloid. Right next to the "OMG, Kim K changed her hair color!!!" story.
tomjen3 12y ago
Honestly that is a valley vag article. They are not exactly the New York Times of tech journalism - more like all the gossip that we can turn into click bait than all the news fit to print - so I would appreciate another source.

by sridca 12y ago

eridius 12y ago

That was my first thought too. But this seems too far after that incident for it to be the cause.

chuhnk 12y ago
No. It's a great way to separate one's involvement from the issue. Things like this happen all the time and you don't hear about it because it's treated exactly like this. CEOs are displaced at the top level in a way that makes it look like a natural next step.
- eridius 12y ago
  If the intent was to make it look like a natural next step, he wouldn't be writing a blog post about how he was fired. If he really was fired for that incident, I'd much prefer GitHub to be open about it and make it clear that was why.
  - chuhnk 12y ago
    He said he was fired, but not how.
    - eridius 12y ago
      Yes. My point was that "being fired" is not the "natural next step" for anyone.
minimaxir 12y ago
The investigation into the claims was performed and completed in April 2014. https://github.com/blog/1823-results-of-the-github-investigation https://github.com/blog/1823-results-of-the-github-investiga... I don't believe it would take a year to fire someone.
- astrodust 12y ago
  There's always the job security factor.

j_baker 12y ago

If it were connected, you would figure the firing would come sooner than two years later. Though it is possible there was another incident.

samstokes 12y ago

Maybe we can keep the speculation and character smearing to another thread? I have no connection to the author, but he's written a very personal post about a subject that isn't often discussed, so I don't feel like this thread is an appropriate place to attack him.

sridca 12y ago
My apologies, I didn't mean to attack Zach. I am actually hoping that he was not fired in connection to the Horvath incident.
NotOscarWilde 12y ago
It seemed to me the post was tiptoeing around the reason of the dismissal, and the author even alludes to the story behind it with: > Seemingly everyone’s got stories of being stuck under shit managers, or dealing the fallout from things out of their control. I don't support "character smearing" or "attacking" in any way, but as a reader of the post, I would like to know more about the reasons for his firing, even in the form of less-than-reliable internet research -- as long as no attacking takes place.
- nirvdrum 12y ago
  One of the reasons you usually don't hear about why people get fired is the employee is offered a severance package in exchange for signing a non-disparagement agreement. Usually that agreement cuts both ways, so you're happy to sign it. You get some money to help you decide what's next, while you and your employer exit on as best terms as reasonably possible. The only thing you need to give up is venting on the Internet, which usually wouldn't work out so well for you anyway. Naturally, I don't know what if any arrangement was made here. But that's a big part of why you hardly ever hear about why someone was fired.
  - chimeracoder 12y ago
    > One of the reasons you usually don't hear about why people get fired is the employee is offered a severance package in exchange for signing a non-disparagement agreement. Obligatory: I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Just FYI, nondisparagement agreements have fallen out of favor in recent years, as they're interpreted very narrowly by courts[0]. Even if your company presents you with one (which they may not), you can usually negotiate it out pretty easily. Especially in industries or jobs in which reputation and "social capital" are highly valued, companies are tending to leave these out, because they're actually massive liabilities for both parties, and there are already enough restrictions around defamation, sharing of confidential information, etc., that it's usually not worth the risk. I have no idea what happened in this case, but it's worth mentioning since you bring this up. [0] As in, this blog post would almost certainly violate a standard nondisparagement agreement, even though it's relatively innocuous at first glance!

crag 12y ago

Who cares? The lot of them - a bunch of 5 year olds fighting in the play ground. Don't get me wrong, harassment of any kind should be stamped out. But, this whole "scandal" has turned into something more likely to appear as a headline in a tabloid. Right next to the "OMG, Kim K changed her hair color!!!" story.

tomjen3 12y ago

Honestly that is a valley vag article. They are not exactly the New York Times of tech journalism - more like all the gossip that we can turn into click bait than all the news fit to print - so I would appreciate another source.