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.

It should be noted "private info" was simply github employee chat rooms (and history), not unfettered access to any customer info.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.