Farewell GitHub, Hello Immersive Computing
tom.preston-werner.com
tom.preston-werner.com
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Seems like a legal threat to Horvath if she speaks up about this again.
edit: re. "unequivocally confirm this and we are prepared to fight any further false claims"
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.")
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who knows?
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.
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.
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.
(http://notch.net/2014/03/virtual-reality-is-going-to-change-...
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?
You'll "strive to do better"? Maybe cut down on the legal threats against subordinates who speak out against you...
> The results of GitHub's independent investigation unequivocally confirm this
Do bosses know how employees with critical-thinking skills perceive such claims? (In my experience: with contempt.)
> I'm also insanely excited about the future.
Like Tom Cruise? Pathologically happy in situations where sane people would be rather bummed, perhaps self-critical or contemplative?
Is it me or does this sound horribly arrogant?
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.
If it sounds "horribly arrogant", then I think that sounds horribly negative and judgemental.
She did a lot of wrong things:
- 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)
Again, here are some of her recent tweets:
https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/458347574672388096 https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/458345005866696704