Why? It doesn't follow from the description of the events. Have they spoken with someone at Github? Are they being pressured by their members or other people? Do they have evidence that GH is worse in those respects than other organizations they partner with? Is ending the partnership the best possible course of action both for their cause and for their members?
Again, Ada is simply saying they cannot continue association with Github. The statement you quoted explicitly states that there were several variables to consider, including their own image as a protector of women's rights (their charter is not to end ALL prejudice, it's specifically aimed at prejudice against women).
This seems verifiably false since Github did in fact sponsor conferences, efforts and perks.
So one bad story, that the details aren't entirely clear on, that resulted in the ousting of a founder, means Github, despite going out of their way to put money on the table to support the cause, isn't worthy?
"With friends like these..." seems apt.
> It was shortly followed by a blog post from the resigning co-founder which included a clear threat of legal action against anyone who said he or his wife had engaged in gender-based harassment or discrimination.
That's a direct accusation, and a false one. The threat was against false accusations.
> The sum of these events make it impossible for Ada Initiative to partner with GitHub at this time. ... We will not accept future sponsorships from or partnerships with GitHub unless the situation changes significantly. ... We are working hard to create a world in which women can participate in open source software, Wikipedia, and other areas of open technology and culture without harassment, intimidation, or discrimination. Sometimes this means refusing to partner with or accept sponsorship from specific people or organizations. It is also contrary to our principles to be silent when our existing sponsors and collaborators' actions consistently do not support our mission.
It doesn't get much more direct than this.
If legal action is taken, of course it will be on the grounds that the accusations are false. Whether the accusation is actually true or false, may not have any bearing on whether or not legal action is taken.
Whether they are sufficient evidence depends on the standard of proof and what other evidence is available.
Sure, and that's a legitimate conclusion to reach. Its different than a "no evidence" situation, and different reasonable people can reasonably view the contradictory claims as having different weights and not simply offsetting.
EDIT: And we actually have more than that, since we have statements from several individuals related to the events, plus the Github official statement in their press release on the investigation they commissioned, and those statements do not amount to simple direct contradictions of each other; but the point remains, there is a difference between a "no evidence" situation and a situation where there is a pile of evidence but where a particular observer doesn't find it sufficient to justify a particular conclusion or action.
Witness testimony is generally considered an important form of evidence. Obviously, whether there is corroborating (or, OTOH, conflicting) evidence effects the conclusions that one draws, but that's true of any instance of evidence, not just statements.
> If I stand up in the office and claim that I saw personA murder someone, does that suddenly constitute non-zero evidence that personA is a murderer?
Yes, although standing on its own it would be extremely weak evidence.
> If I write a program to randomly generate claims and post them to my Twitter account, is each tweet a non-zero amount of evidence?
No, because that's not an person making a claim of facts about which they assert direct knowledge. Its kind of irrelevant to the present circumstance, given that no one has challenged the authenticity of the source of Horvath's (or of the other participant's) claims here.
If someone wants to deny an accusation that is true, they will claim that said accusation is false. Claiming that legal action will only be taken if the accusation is false doesn't matter. Take this hypothetical:
If the accusations against TPW are true, but he doesn't want
the world-at-large to believe him. He will present to the
world that the accusations are false. Claims that legal
action will only be taken in the case that accusations are
false don't mean that the accusations must be false for legal
action to be taken.
TPW could take legal action if he wants to present to the world
that the accusations are false and smear the accuser. This would
be a situation where the accusations are true, but legal action
is still taken.The company's claim that they will pursue legal action against false accusations should not discourage people from making true accusations, because the statement provides absolutely no information about what the company intends to do with true accusations. An analogy would be the statement "we will pursue legal action against anyone who trespasses on company property." That shouldn't discourage employees from going into their offices.
It cannot automatically be assumed that those considerations generalize to other contexts -- they must be considered in each context.
That seems entirely guilty (if you want to make it into an issue of guilt)to me. github did have "mistakes and errors of judgment" serious enough that Tom resigned.