After weeks of silence, we learned that, despite, being found not guilty of the harassment accusations, questions popped up regarding Tom’s judgment in a separate area. We learned that unnamed employees felt pressured by Tom and me to work pro-bono for my nonprofit.
This appears to be the real reason for Tom's resignation.
She couldn't have possibly thought that broaching the topic of her own venture with her husband's employees could've been construed as anything but pressure to help her on it. Are people really this fucking dense?
Er, I originally came to the comments section to say the exact opposite. I guess this is what happens when you're too close to your colleagues and your company grows up.
> I guess this is what happens when you're too close to your colleagues and your company grows up.
There's also a difference between "colleagues" and "employees" let alone "partner's employees".
Look at it like this: a student flirting with an other student[0] is generally appropriate, a teacher flirting with a student not so much. Because the teacher is in a position of abusable power compared to the student an otherwise harmless situation easily becomes fraught with peril.
[0] assuming reason, acknowledgement of rejection, etc..
> Because the teacher is in a position of abusable power compared to the student
From what it sounds like, the relationship between the employees/execs at Github was much more friendly than the teacher/student relationship you mentioned. The pitty is that this is super common at small companies, and it would appear this is the relevant fallout after you grow beyond a certain size.
> From what it sounds like, the relationship between the employees/execs at Github was much more friendly than the teacher/student relationship you mentioned.
Teachers and students can have very friendly relationships (common when the teacher is young, or in uni-level courses, I've had excellent relations with teachers in the past). That does not change the power relation and the risks of abuse thereof.
It does not seem difficult to understand both sides in a situation like this. It seems like something that probably happens all the time, especially in regards to charities.
Absolutely.
Good fences make good neighbours.
To some, no fence or small fence is an invitation to overfamiliarity.
Make it too tall and create suspicion.
In the beginning of my career, certainly before I had the cash reserves to easily weather being laid off, I worked for a company that had a 4-month death march. The two nights before the work was due I literally didn't sleep. As an aside, I really can't recommend this; the code I produced was basically nonsensical. And I think I added far more bugs than I removed, but I did get the final blocking bug out (no matter how many every-so-slightly lower priority bugs I added in its stead.) The ceo came in the morning of the final due date and saw me -- wearing the same clothes for nearly 48 hours and utterly sleep deprived -- and made a crack about how I didn't look like I'm been working hard and I should get to work or he'd fire me. Joking about firing people may or may not ever be funny, but definitely stops being funny when the person has the ability to do it. And some managers fail to understand that - your relationships with employees change when you're their supervisor.
Similarly, it's really not hard to see how being too close or too friendly with people you supervise can cause all sorts of problems, ranging from letting them get away with things they shouldn't because of the friendship or them sharing things with you that force you, as a boss, to choose between your friendship or what your company requires.
I just don't think it's a good idea either way. It's a bummer that it makes workplaces a little more impersonal, but imo it's for the best. I bet it's the reason the military doesn't (from my perspective) seem to encourage enlisted and officers to co-socialize.
With this post, I also think that Tom's wife has inadvertently incriminated herself of meddling in company affairs. Given that she was not an employee at all, I do find it highly inappropriate that she would interact at all with GitHub employees regarding her business. Strangely enough, I think that most of this situation could have been mitigated if she had even a $1/year figurehead role in the company.
JAH is honest, and github's board decided Tom can't stay. Unfortunately, admitting that exposes them to massive legal liability (starting with the unaddressed allegation from JAH that she was penalized at work because she wouldn't fuck a coworker, and moving on to the options she was forced to give up when she left. Plus penalties. And a hostile work environment.) So this is an excuse from the board and/or ceo to get Tom + wife the hell away from github without admitting guilt.
I don't know what to believe, though I'm naturally a cynic.
so, your claim is the board would have tpm leave while saying, "Our investigation found the allegations to be completely unfounded. On an unrelated note, Tom is leaving to spend more time with his family." That right there is basically an admission of guilt.
My (yes, speculation; was the first line not clear enough?) was that Tom + wife did something relatively close to the claim, and therefore Tom needed to leave. This is an excuse for him to leave -- maybe the only one around -- that doesn't open github to further liability.
@abalone: one more time:
if the board where to say "found nothing" and tom 'quit', it's an admission of guilt. The board instead is saying "found nothing, but oh, here's some minor misconduct so now tom is leaving", ie not an admission of guilt with respect to Julie's allegations. Thus my guess is that Tom leaving over some charity incident is a way to (1) get tom + wife away from github without (2) either explicitly ("yup, Tom did just what she said") or implicitly ("Tom didn't do a damn thing but oh, he just up and left") admitting guilt
Earlier you said "this is an excuse... to get Tom + wife the hell away from github without admitting guilt".
Now you are contradictorily saying their statement "is basically an admission of guilt".
So we agree on that. Therefore, I'm saying admitting guilt like that would not be the right move for a cynical board that just wants to minimize legal liability. Most likely the dismissal was due to other related issues that came up in the investigation concerning his handling of the situation. There's plenty potential scandal within that to be cynical about, it just doesn't support the notion that Horvath's charges about sexism necessarily have any merit.
Or it's possible that they want you to believe this?
I find it strange that both of the Preston-Werners posted blog posts directly after the github post came out. Usually I'd think lawyers would not encourage this...
Most attorneys will advise clients not to make public statements until a matter has been resolved formally. Where appropriate, public statements are generally very direct and avoid detail.
I am skeptical that an attorney blessed statements like "we were fully cleared of all accusations of harassment" and "we learned that, despite, being found not guilty of the harassment accusations." These statements, particularly "found not guilty", would be appropriate following a favorable resolution of a civil or criminal matter. In my opinion they are absolutely not appropriate following the completion of a third party investigation initiated by a company. Such investigations are a standard part of the pre-litigation process; they do not eliminate the threat of litigation and they do not guarantee a successful defense.
I am even more skeptical that this statement was coordinated with counsel because it contains information that could be used to support other claims against the company. The statement gives credence to the idea that some employees may have felt pressured by a superior's spouse. There are a variety of causes of actions under which such an admission could be beneficial to a plaintiff's claims and these statements could conceivably be useful to other employees if they are considering the pursuit of unrelated actions.
Might it be that defunkt said what lawyers would like him to say and that mojombo and his wife didn't? Did you see anything major that defunkt said in those two blog posts that a lawyer would find fault with?
It seems like defunkt may have watched mojombo and his wife do a few things that he'd rather they didn't do. Maybe he was frustrated and talked to their investor about it and they didn't like the situation either, and long story short, mojombo resigned. I imagine this might be hard for their friendship (which I hear is legendary despite their differences) but hopefully they'll overcome it.
Even though I'm no longer a practicing attorney I prefer not to speculate. I can only state that I have watched this situation with interest and am amazed at how poorly both sides have handled the matter. I do not see the fingerprints of competent counsel in the actions of either side.
This appears to be the real reason for Tom's resignation.