I really don't understand some of these responses:
1) GitHub doesn't owe us the details of the investigation - what difference does it make to anyone apart from creating more fodder for gossip? This is an internal company matter.
2) Regarding Tom's "threat" - This is pretty much the largest "resolution" that could've come out of this, right? Some of Horvath's allegations were true and a high-profile founder has resigned. The way I read it was: What more is there to do? I think that's what he means. "I've resigned, isn't that enough? If you want to keep pursuing it, what's left to seek? At that point it's personal and my wife and I will respond appropriately."
While I agree that the majority of the investigation isn't relevant to those outside of the company, there is a major topic that hasn't been addressed: the assertion that a non-employee was continuously present in the office and had access to private info.
That's extremely relevant to customers, and makes one question GitHub's security/privacy practices.
Specifically #2- not entirely. Apparently the engineer who sexually harassed her was recently promoted to Engineering lead.
Edit: I'm not stating an opinion in any direction here, just relaying information for discussion. In all honesty, this entire thing looks like one big cartoon dustcloud of a fight and taking any sides here would be bad judgment on my part.
I don't think that anyone is claiming that GitHub "owes" the community the details.
While this may have been an "internal company matter" initially, it did eventually become very public. There has already been a huge amount of speculation out in the open regarding whatever might have happened in this case, much of it quite negative.
So given all of this speculation and gossip, it's not at all surprising that there are people, including users and customers of GitHub, who just want some facts. And there's nothing unreasonable about them requesting such information, especially when it's paying customers doing the asking.
> ... especially when it's paying customers doing the asking. Bullshit. I'm a paying GitHub customer ($7/mo) and I'm not interested in the details. I think I'm more interested in the company recovering as quickly as possible to deliver more awesomeness. How does asking for unnecessary detail help that?
It's fine that you don't care about this information. But that in no way means that others hold the same view as you.
There are people and organizations paying significantly more each month than you are, and they're very likely using GitHub in a way that's far more critical to their operations than it may be for you.
For some customers or potential customers, the factual details regarding this case are more important than I think you realize. They need the facts to help decide if they want to keep using GitHub going forward, or if they even want to adopt it in the first place.
Without the facts, they have to sift through rampant speculation, trying to make educated guesses at what's plausible and how it may affect them, their source code, their obligations, and their continued operation as a business.
Part of the "recovery" involves getting factual information out there so that existing and new customers aren't faced with uncertainty. Somebody paying $7 per month might not care, but people and organizations paying $200 or more very well may.
> They need the facts to help decide if they want to keep using GitHub going forward, or if they even want to adopt it in the first place.
Bullshit again. How? This is not an OkCupid/Mozilla (against browser but not against programming language). It's needlessly poking your nose until it bleeds. For a customer paying $200/mo, how would knowing the fine print help their decision making? Assuming the details are appalling and sick,
Would you stop using jQuery because they wouldn't move from GitHub? Other open source projects on GitHub too?
Would you switch services because the organization decided to stick with GitHub after all?
If you would use services and projects on Github no matter what, what's the point in asking for these details?
Because jQuery, as a public project, is not supporting github financially.
For a company paying thousands of dollars to github, trusting them with potential trade secrets, they would care about the stability of github's employees, the way github treats different kinds of people [1], the ability of github's HR department to keep their employees happy, etc.
Them failing those criteria would mean that they are exposing me to risks with regard to HR, the security of my code, and now PR risks. At which point, why would I pay them?
[1] If my company, paying github, is half women, do I have to worry about the fact that half of my employees might be discriminated against if they talk to github? If a female executive of my company talks to them, will she be harassed?
Since their establishment they've dealt with the situations similar to/exactly the same as what you're concerned about. That history is there for our benefits.
Granted, what happened with Horvath was admittedly a mistake.
Here's what we could do:
We could hang on to that and question their integrity and everything that they've done right during their existence but that would be us being overzealous and giving more attention to the wrong thing.
They're dedicated to fixing this shit themselves, let's not make it harder by asking for more detail than what we already know. I can assure you that it's worthless data for making any decision about whether or not to use GitHub.
It isn't unreasonable that people are curious for more information, but whether or not they are paying customers is irrelevant. Just because you (in general) pay and I do not, does not grant you some right to have your questions answered or receive information. There's no obligation on the part of GitHub to provide any information at all, and like many other similar scenarios if the lack of supposed transparency bothers you, then you have the option to move to BitBucket.
1. Wouldn't additional details from GitHub help in reducing the gossip from a company that plenty of people depend on and pay for?
2. Fair assumption, although it seems like litigation is really the next step so it's not necessarily surprising that he's made that statement/threat. It makes sense, his rep has taken quite a hit and yet we still have no solid facts in the public - if people want to continue the he-said/she-said then let's at least do it in court.
Jeez, so when does The Wives of Silicon Valley start? The whole tech scene in SF has turned into such a little soap opera, cult of personality, wank fest.
Here's my one and only interaction with the author:
I met Tom a couple of years ago when I first got to SF. It was at a bar in the mission that was holding an international get together for github users. I'll never forget the impression he made on me. We talked for a good while, most about drawing.
Since I was totally new to town (and had spent most my adult life outside the US), I had no idea who he was. I'd used github but didn't know much about it and certainly didn't know who he was. I love drawing and sketching and it was actually via a flash game tutorial on Kongretate.com that I found my first serious entry point into programming. Telling Tom about this, he started talking about drawing octocats and the entire conversation was about artwork. Until someone told me otherwise about half an hour later, I thought he was the "octocat guy", an artist who happened to be at a nice company.
It's really rare in my life when I've been shocked by someone's humility and congeniality, but meeting Tom was one of those times. I'll also say that in the intervening two years, I've gotten to know the product quite well and really hope the best both for Github and his upcoming venture.
Edit:
I've been an HN user since almost the beginning and I have to say this is saddening. It boggles the mind that sharing a brief story of meeting with author of the piece and wishes for the success of both Github and the future venture is something that warrants multiple down votes.
Tangentially, his wife's startup https://omakasecharity.org/ actually looks pretty interesting; one of the most exciting things of the past year has been how tech people (YC, etc.) have gotten involved in new kinds of charities, rather than just donating to existing ones. I guess I'd argue Bill Gates was the one who kicked this all off, with a strict program of accountability, but the smaller startups actually use technology to accomplish their missions in a new and more effective way.
Founding new charities has been the hobby of wealthy society types since time immemorial. It is much more ego-stroking than joining one of the many groups already doing great work.
> ...the results of GitHub's independent investigation unequivocally confirm this and we are prepared to fight any further false claims on this matter to the full extent of the law.
Seems like a legal threat to Horvath if she speaks up about this again.
That's definitely the most dramatic possible interpretation, and is thus the one the Internet will fixate on. Giant crowds of uninformed bystanders can be counted on never to pick the most boring narrative.
Sounds like legalese boilerplate that the GH legal team recommended. Nothing more, nothing less.
Harassment allegations aside, the fact that the wife of the founder had the access/freedom she did was a bit of a WTF for me. I can understand that perhaps GH decided that was the termination-triggering offense, not the allegations.
It's probably aimed more at reminding GitHub employees of the possible legal ramifications of publicly supporting the allegations and dampening further discussion in general.
I don't see how that's less dramatic though, especially since the meaning of that statement is pretty obvious.
Whether you interpret it as normal, like you do, or inappropriate and/or sad, like I would, is a different matter.
For that one line, which other explanation do you have that better fits Occam's razor?
I would have a lot of trouble finding any other interpretation than him attempting to stop certain people from saying certain things and thus suppressing the discussion, whether successfully or not.
It's a reminder that freedom of speech != freedom from consequences. They're asking everyone to not ride on this infamous situation to perpetrate any more falsehood. Because if you do you'd have to help yourself with a little bit of law.
a) There is zero legal merit. As an outside observer, I don't know one way or another. I presume you don't either. (Remember the law does not always track your intuition.)
b) Even if there is some theoretical legal merit, the independent investigation results (if what we're told is the entirety of the conclusions) may make it an uphill battle to pursue the claim.
c) There is actual legal merit but the potential plaintiff is choosing not to pursue the matter.
d) There is actual legit merit and the attorneys are in settlement talks right now.
e) There is actual legal merit and a lawsuit will be filed before the statute of limitations expire.
Could you please remind us your credentials in this case, or are you yourself some "uninformed bystander" on "the Internet"? (If you're in the middle of this, perhaps you should link to it each time you comment.)
But in American courts, if I call you a dog-fornicator, you generally have to prove to the court you aren't a dog-fornicator to get damages. (Plus a bunch of other stuff, like actual damages, unless it's per-se defamation, except if . . . . There's a lot that could be added to this, hence my "generally.")
> in American courts, if I call you a dog-fornicator, you generally have to prove to the court you aren't a dog-fornicator to get damages.
To get damages? That's another issue. In American courts, the accused would not have to prove to the court that they aren't a dog fornicator. The prosecution has to prove you the accused is guilty.
There isn't necessarily a solution. I'm just pointing out that underprivileged folks are often at a disadvantage. "The truth shall set you free" sometimes only applies if you can afford to fight the other side's lawyers for a few years.
No I don't know her personally but from what I've read I believe the intimidation she described. I've felt the bipolar intimidation from founders before and am completely sympathetic towards her and the situation. Nobody deserves to be that situation.
If she doesn't feel vindicated, sure, we'd support her lawsuit against both GitHub and P-W. Also it depends on what she says, not forgetting we interpret situations differently and with different levels of intensity. She should tread cautiously.
Don't know about the US, but where I live making wrong claims that damage somebody's reputation is illegal. I think it makes lot of sense to sue people who accuse you of sexual harassment. What other recourse is there? Arguing about it will never work.
> During my time away from GitHub I started experimenting with Go, OpenGL, and Unity with an eye towards the software side of immersive computing.
That is extremely exciting to me. It's no secret I'm a big fan of Go, and seeing someone as influential as Tom pick it up is great to hear. I'm looking forward to following what comes out of this.
Go is an odd choice for such a graphics-heavy domain. If it works out well, I'll be very interested to hear more about that combination of technologies.
He's almost definitely using Go for the server-side and Unity+OpenGL for the client side. It would be really bizarre to try to use Go and Unity in the same client-side app.
It's just as odd as using OpenGL from Java, right? The main issue I've seen people have with Go and using it for gaming or heavy graphics use is that it is garbage collected. But compared to the Java Hotspot runtime, it's gc isn't nearly as robust.
For whatever it is worth, Notch has said that when Oculus initially approached him for Minecraft on the Oculus, he identified performance being an issue as the Oculus would require a steady 90fps, which Minecraft would struggle to provide on some hardware. He identified using Java as one of the reasons that this was the case.
Before the Mojang/Oculus connection was severed in the Facebook/Oculus fallout, the plan was apparently to make a stripped down version of Minecraft, similar to Pocket or Pi, for the Oculus.
I think calling OpenGL from Java for performance-critical applications is an odd choice as well. I think the relative performance of native versus ART android apps is a good example of that.
Not that it's impossible to keep framerates up using GCed languages. But framerate will be extremely important for applications that more or less require screens with higher refresh rates than commodity LCDs.
I thought it strange he dedicated real estate on this posting to his wife's new project. Seems a bit tone deaf given the thrust of the incident appeared to be the fact that his wife had oversized influence at GitHub.
All the other crap aside, I kind of envy him for getting into VR now. The recent news about Oculus, and reading "Masters Of Doom", have somehow given me a renewed excitement for the field again. What if those snow crash visions could become a reality after all? (Sans the sword fighting, I think it is not possible because of the speed of light?).
I'd be excited to work in that area, but I have no idea how to go about it in a sensible way. I mean how could I contribute as a single individual, without having a company on my hands?
Totally agree here. I have not seen any major innovations come out from github recently. It's a great product already and something phenomenal has to happen to make me take notice. In VR, I imagine the barriers to making an impression are lot lesser.
Once I realized how a VR headset working in AR mode could do away with my multiple monitor setup, I was overjoyed. Now the tech needs to catch up with the possibility.
Can anybody tell me what company he is starting? From the article it seems vague and probably he does not even have a specific idea yet. Would love to join if the plan is more specific.
I know that complaining about tone is low on Paul Graham's hierarchy of disagreement, but "I'm telling you this because I think stealth mode is bullshit" doesn't exactly win me over. I'm glad my dog doesn't talk that way to me.
Note that the Github blog post briefly summarizes the results of the investigation (acknowledging "errors in judgment" from Preston-Werner and wife but nothing else), but that's basically it --- nothing at all about who the investigators talked to, or about what. And no response whatever to Horvath's specific accusations (e.g., about a coworker sabotaging her work after she turned him down for a date).
Not necessarily. As a small business owner, I aspire to this as well, if only because my experience has been "I expect my employers to get all they can out of my while paying me the bare minimum and treating me as poorly as I'll tolerate."
Granted, this is just my perspective, but that does suggest that this statement can mean various things depending on who you are and how you've been treated yourself.
- Dating a coworker is not one of the best practise.
- gossiping around about your co-workers/founders character is the also not the best thing to do.
- If you write shit code, your code will be removed. She is definitely not known for her coding abilities. She is just a melodrama queen who is bad at heart, opportunist, blackmailed founder to poison the company atmosphere.
- You can create a healthy workspace shouting "Women Women" every time. We work with women too. Our behaviour and respect is based on compassion and professionalism. They are just like any other person in the company.
- The real story must have been that she is a bad/mediocre developer who was being reviewed which didn't turned out pretty well (Obv since she was busy bitching against coworkers). The only good way she had to abuse and insult the company publically , get sympathy and then a Job. She seems to have good PR skills. (Pun intended)
1) GitHub doesn't owe us the details of the investigation - what difference does it make to anyone apart from creating more fodder for gossip? This is an internal company matter.
2) Regarding Tom's "threat" - This is pretty much the largest "resolution" that could've come out of this, right? Some of Horvath's allegations were true and a high-profile founder has resigned. The way I read it was: What more is there to do? I think that's what he means. "I've resigned, isn't that enough? If you want to keep pursuing it, what's left to seek? At that point it's personal and my wife and I will respond appropriately."