Developer quits GitHub due to harassment
twitter.com
twitter.com
Lots of people seem to be taking the opportunity to jump on Github for "toxic culture" and so forth, but until we know what actually happened, they seem to be jumping to conclusions.
Some people might call this victim blaming, but until we find out who the actual victim(s) is/are in the situation, how can we know who is to blame?
A company could be the victim of a disgruntled ex-employee who wants to drag the company's name through the mud. And a company could have treated an ex-employee bad enough that she quit. The uninvolved public simply don't know enough facts to take a side one way or the other.
Not knowing any of the parties involved, I just can't pretend to know more about this than what is publicly visible, which is essentially nothing.
1. The OP has not yet explained what happened but says a blog post is on its way: https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/444649347037155329
> I'm done keeping quiet and will be writing about my experiences soon.
2. Part of the problem stems from this Secret post that apparently refers to her: https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/444646082857820160
My own opinion: unrelated to the issue at hand, but I'm sad at how technology in the world's brightest innovation sector is being used as I imagine it would be among high schoolers who had the power to invent and acquire millions in funding.
On other hand if she was so bad as the Secret screenshot claims, why wasnt she fired. Of course this whole incident could be a result of a slow firing process where the employer has to collect enough documentation in order to protect itself from any discrimination lawsuit.
Of course truth be told we simply may never find out what really happened since each party will try to protect its image.
Horvath isn't so much protecting her image as she is heaping dirt upon it. She's allegedly harassed in the workplace, and the first place she goes to is Twitter? Nowhere in the flowchart of "how to deal with workplace issues" will you find a square that says "whine on Twitter." "Blog about it" is also conspicuously absent.
A complaint or protest about alleged employment discrimination
to a manager, union official, co-worker, company EEO official,
attorney, newspaper reporter, Congressperson, or anyone else
constitutes opposition. ...
A complaint about an employment practice constitutes protected
opposition only if the individual explicitly or implicitly
communicates a belief that the practice constitutes unlawful
employment discrimination\13. Because individuals often may not
know the specific requirements of the anti-discrimination laws
enforced by the EEOC, they may make broad or ambiguous
complaints of unfair treatment. Such a protest is protected
opposition if the complaint would reasonably have been
interpreted as opposition to employment discrimination.
You can make up whatever ideas you want on what someone should or shouldn't do, but if you read the actual court cases you'll find that your views would protect workplaces with illegal discriminatory practices, including workplaces which actively support sexual harassment.
That seems a little backwards to me.
The whole of: When men cuss on stage, they're commanding. When women cuss on stage, they're unprofessional.
I understood the context may be that or made out to be that, but in reality it isn't really appropriate for anyone. I am sure men have been criticised for the same thing, so I do not believe it is some sexiest ideology. It may be that some people believe that speakers should be professional.
Hey I understand your position, but she is criticising the "bullies" (whom I gather are audience members) in that statement, not the company.
The irony of this is she goes on to mention Adria Richards who became infamous for tweeting the private conversation of two people whose language was also inappropriate, and suggesting it was a difficult time for Richards.
So I am confused by the messaging in the post, it is ok to say "Fuck" but wrong to criticise someone for saying it, but it is ok to criticise someone for innuendo for forking a repo.
To have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an otherwise public area, one must make some sort of effort to establish that privacy. For example, by speaking so softly that no one else can listen in without technological means, or move to a room with solid doors and walls so that the eavesdropper must place one's ear against the door to hear the conversation.
This applies everywhere. Homes are considered private areas, and having sex is (usually) considered a private act. But if I hear my neighbors talking dirty while having sex, then if I want I can complain to them or tell others about the problem, even if they mean for it to be a private act in a private area.
You see this breakdown of public/private conversations all the time. Someone talking on a cell phone while on a bus may consider the conversation private, but if 1/2 the bus can hear the speaker, it's certainly not private even if the custom is to ignore the speaker.
I have no doubt of her abilities since Im assuming Github is pretty good at their interviews. Its too bad something got broken professionally or personally that resulted in this outcry