Follow up to the investigation results
github.com
github.com
Is she delusional? The report doesn't substantiate her claim of sexism AT ALL. They couldn't even find the malicious code removals by "the guy who she wouldn't let fuck her" that was one of her central claims.
It doesn't insubstantiate them either. TPW acted "inappropriately", which may or may not have been because Julie was a female. I believe that the stress of the CEO (and his wife) on Julie may have contributed to her experience in the workplace overall. I've been under that kind of stress before (not gender-based) and I know that it colored the future dealings I had at that job.
Harassment doesn't happen in a vacuum and they shouldn't be considered isolated incidents. Harassment affects us all differently and what some people may be able to brush off, others get affected by, deeply.
I almost want to address you calling Julie delusional, but I'm afraid it would only lend credence to you calling her that...
1. They only have the git repo history to go on.
2. It's been long enough that errant objects have been garbage collected.
It's possible that the code she committed removed via a push that removed it from history entirely (e.g. `git push +old-master:master`). If this push was never reverted, then the commit object would become an orphan that was up for removal at the next garbage collection interval. After that, the incident would absolutely just be 'he said, she said,' and a lack of evidence would not be proof that she was lying.
Also, they said they looked at both the push log and the commit history.
Not saying it's impossible, but it seems like it'd have generated some documentation if it happened, probably in the form of people sending out "WTF? Who's pushing history-changes???" emails.
Edited to add: Also, the article says they reviewed git push logs, which I imagine would catch this.
Is it really only possible for a revert to happen 'within a few seconds' to not cause issues? That's a strong statement to make based on little information. It might be true, but the repository in question could also have little traffic, or this could have happened over a weekend.
> Also, the article says they reviewed git push logs, which I imagine would catch this.
I see. I guess overlooked that (probably just read it as 'commit logs').
In general, I don't understand why they didn't just ask her about the commits in question. If it did happen, she would likely be able to point them in the right direction and at least narrow their search (e.g. 'the revert happened in repository X around these dates'). If she couldn't, then they are no better off, but no worse off either.
That's a fair point. It'd depend a great deal on how github has their repos set up, and I can't remember seeing anyone talk about that.
The nature of the commit/revert.
Hey guys,
I had a branch `foo` in my repository `bar` a year or
so ago. I deleted the branch (which had no references)
and don't have any backups of it. Do you think that
you guys could restore it for me?I mean if you bought the whole bullshit about a lead reverting code (highly visible thing to do) because she would not put out and not because code was.. gasp broken then you are pretty delusional your self.
Also, you ignored the part about them not being able to find anything in the commit history to support her most concrete charge of sexism (having her code reverted by a male who wanted to have sex with her).
Though I'd assume they did more in depth investigations than just looking at the commit history, what with being a company that literally makes a living out of git.
A force push will still show up in the log. Issues and PRs aren't deletable, so that lends a bit of credibility to this. Sure, said engineer probably has access to erase the push log and delete the issues or PRs directly from the database, but parties involved would likely still have email notifications related to it.
I sincerely hope you see the irony in this.
Also you mischaracterized what I said. I asked if she was delusional for claiming the github blog post (which we can all read right in front of us) substantiates her claims. Not the initial claims of sexism themselves.
I was super sympathetic, too, and excited that there was such a good example of a woman fighting for her rights, until I saw her complaining about some guy deleting her code because he wanted to f* her. That's not what GH's investigation has found, and it's much more about the Preston-Werner's wrongs now.
If her allegations are found to have merit, then a lawsuit is what she would file next with this as the only evidence she needs to confirm what she's been saying.
Now that the results are in and they found nothing to support her allegations, it looks like GitHub has a strong defamation case to bring against her.
If I was her, I'd be looking for a good attorney to represent me. Since she never filed a lawsuit, this makes her look like what most people on the GitHub side have been saying all along. That she's indignant, bitter and feels entitled. Not to mention the whole time she's been feeding GitHub plenty of ammunition via social media.
2. Github suing her for defamation would be SO counter-productive, as it would make them look awful. Also, did you see the part where they apologized to her?
Are you sure you actually read the OP?
Clearly, their FIRST public announcement was written on the advice of lawyers or PR people, where they admitted as little as possible, in part not to give her 'ammunition' in court. But it made them look bad and weasely. So this is the one they released _even though_ it gives her some ammunition.
1. TPW and her spouse acted inappropriately
2. There was no evidence of sexist behavior at GitHub (related to this instance, at least).
Horvath's claims included allegations of both 1 & 2. It's clear that her allegations did irreparable damage to GitHub, since a lot of people won't bother to follow this story in detail and will remember it a "sexist" place where your code may get deleted if you don't put out.
As you say GitHub will not be able to bring defamation charges against Horvath due to PR reasons, this is an unfortunate and sad state of affairs (and one of the very few times I long for the strong defamation laws in Europe).
Litigation is very slow. They want this to go away, not drag it out for months or years. Also, her lawyers would subpoena Github for years of chat logs, emails, and texts. Even if there is no smoking gun, they could probably dredge up something embarassing and make it public.
I kind of don't want to cross any of their paths. Too much drama, might have been some sordid stuff but there was definitely a lot of drama. I'll keep my code elsewhere and I'll be wary of all involved.
She knew very well that an investigation was being conducted; it just wasn't an investigation to her liking.
However reading the release, the gender of the injured party seems to be independent and unrelated to the injustices which relate instead to the apparently inappropriate behaviour of TPW's spouse and her unsanctioned involvement in the company.
Sexism is a highly incendiary issue in this community. How did a case which apparently was not about sexism come to be so closely related to it? Is the report from Github incorrect or was sexism used to market this to the watching population?
I shouldn't expect better from HN, but it's amazing how much stock people put in the words of corporations trying to cover their asses, even if they are start ups. Everyone stops applying critical thinking when you criticize start ups because of the ridiculous start up boosterism mentality we've adopted.
This did not become a gender issue when "other people support[ed] that claim." This became a gender issue the moment Julie claimed she was harassed because she was a woman. Whether her claims are invalidated or not doesn't change the gender-based nature of her claims--it would simply mean that her claims (which are still gender-based!) are not supported by the evidence.
I like to think that I would, but none of us know how we would react until put in that situation.
You assume here that someone is holding back, but we don't know that either.
Rhoma’s report includes personal stories, private thoughts, documents, and all kinds of details that were shared for the purpose of the investigation, not for public consumption. We are trying to be transparent, but I hope you understand that there are privacy concerns preventing us from sharing the report in full.
Shouldn't these sort of investigations be done by a legal agency? Not that legal agencies are always unbiased, but an investigator appointed by a corporation seems obviously suspect.
This is an interesting revelation. (Actually it's not a revelation. It clears a doubt on our minds after Julie's incident.) Also, I have always wondered why none of GitHub's female workers have supported her or spoken to Github's allegedly rotten, sexist working environment so far.
> They also saw what happened to Julie and probably would not have been treated very well at work if word got out that they were speaking critically about the company You imply GitHub's female employees read prepared scripts to the investigator about their working conditions.
Regardless; by definition all Julie-Ann can comment on is her own experience and it's very much possible for her to have experienced gender-based harassment, even multiple times, yet it not being systemic to GitHub.
Of course, "I was mistreated at X" sounds much less powerful than "there's a gender discrimination at X", but one example of the former does not prove the latter, and refuting this example also does not prove the latter does not exist.
there seems to be a palpable thirst by some for the smoking gun that tech is overrun with mysogynistic brogrammers. it was out in full force here. it's depressing to see my field play into the hand of gossip mags like valleywag. i have no problem with flushing out bad actors like the people who were found to act unprofessionally. they are the minority though. to take their behavior and try to paint a whole industry is sad and usually being done by people whose identities and personal brands are defined by this issue.
hired investigator finds employer innocent. I'm shocked!
the point about falsifiability comes in when that distressed person makes widely communicated public accusations about the conduct of not just individuals but an entire company and in this case due to the environment of paranoia about sexism an entire industry. if you are going to make claims about systemic gender discrimination then you are opening yourself up to criticism and the need to provide evidence.
Where things jumped the shark is where men watching women voluntarily hoola hooping at a company event triggered an industry-wide freak out about sexism through the magic of blogs and twitter. (With Valleywag et al laughing all the way to the bank.)
But it wasn't good enough for Horvath: in order to get her point across -- and to play with your head -- she needs you to believe that you to believe there was "no investigation."
Hardly, that would be bullying. Sexism is systemic by definition.
> Ultimately she conducted over 50 interviews during a four week period.
Reading GitHub's statements on the investigation, it seems the independent investigator they hired found no evidence that sexism at GitHub. The investigator did find issues with TPW's general professional behavior which is why he resigned.
> Sexism is a highly incendiary issue in this community. How did a case which apparently was not about sexism come to be so closely related to it?
I think you answered your own question there.
> Is the report from Github incorrect or was sexism used to market this to the watching population?
That is what we call a false dichotomy. I do not see how you have narrowed it down to those two choices, and it honestly seems like a veiled accusation.
The reason I asked it though is that if this is being used as a tool then it takes away from the real problem. I have no doubt that there are a lot of women in technology have experienced and do experience sexism and that is a very bad and sad thing
However, the amplitude and focus of how this story played out (in places as far as the British Sunday papers) and focussed on institutional sexism seems to be very different to the facts portrayed in the report. Such harassment and psychological pressure is of course terrifically difficult to document and I do know that there could be several different backgrounds that fit the report but there is still quite a distance between the two.
So the reason that I asked the question is that if this is the case then it's a massive disservice to those who are feeling the effects of genuine sexism and weakens their voice. I suspect that that was the net effect of what happened in the Sendgrid case and I think that is a very sad thing.
Thank you for that. It's somehow very much appreciated.
As for the sexism accusations; Many, many women feel they're being discriminated at work ( and they're usually right.) Only a tiny, tiny percentage chooses to speak out about it though because of the very high costs associated with it.
My guess is that in this case Julie-Ann just happened to be one of those silent women and when things escalated with Tom it was just a case of 'now that my reputation will be ruined anyhow I might just as well get everything off my chest.'
If you read her original post she also doesn't make that much of a big deal about the sexism stuff; it's just 'one amongst many' of the abuses she listed.
Also keep in mind that, assuming she's acting in good faith, it's very likely that the reverted commit was indeed very small and dubious but was accompanied, verbally or non-verbally, by something that very clearly and unambiguously communicated the real reason; but of course without leaving a paper trail.
I thought it was the hula hooping that was the final straw for her and the actual reason she resigned?
Because she explicitly called out that the source of the problem was gender discrimination. Whether she was mistaken or whether the investigation failed to find the problem no one knows for sure, but it is not surprising that this case was closing related to sexism when the victim claimed that was the cause.
As to her assertions that an engineer was keeping her out of the code if she wouldn't sleep with him, I've actually lost sleep trying to figure out how you'd handle that complaint. Where would the evidence trail be? Innocent until proven guilty but also wanting not to assume a women is lying about sexually harassed, how do you balance those two things? Given what we know about sexual harassment, it's a horrible idea to operate on the assumption the accuser is lying, but when it's just word vs. word, what do you do? Presume guilt? Can those two employees co-exist? Can you fire the accused even if there's no proof (and what proof would there be? Commit logs aren't much.)
Anyone have suggestions? Ideally you want to build a culture where this just would never come up and where nobody would tolerate it, but I just don't think that's ever going to be fool proof.
It's like an airplane crash; it virtually always involves several failures along several points and only when all failures come together do you get into an irreparable situation.
Keep in mind that the irreparable situation in this case is Julie-Ann leaving, because even with the abuse clear HR support could still have easily prevented the issue from escalating.
(1) forbid "workplace romance" - this is very against my philosophy of encouraging personal freedom, and I don't think I would want to work for a company that had this policy. Moreover, I don't think this would solve the problem - false allegations could still be made, and true allegations could still be denied.
(2) disciplining the one who makes the inappropriate action - this too has the "he said, she said" problem as above, and furthermore the appropriateness of the action is often determined not by the subject's action itself, but how the object perceives it.
The best policy that I can think of is: all employees are expected to act professionally in the workplace, and to not be affected by their emotions (if they can't manage that, they should take a day off). Workplace romances are discouraged, because they may result in hard feelings between employees, but if you think being with the person is worth risking your job, go for it. In case two people have a conflict unrelated to their work, they should handle it as adults. If they expect action from the employer, they should present concrete evidence (emails, code commits, phone call logs, voice recording of the conflict, ...).
I realise that this sounds a bit harsh and insensitive, but that's what would work for someone like me - in the rare instances where I disliked my coworkers, I put my feelings aside and consciously decided to give them "another chance" by recognising all the great work they do. What are your thoughts, and what kind of policy would you suggest/instantiate?
The general consensus is that there is no right approach [1] but that there are a lot of best practices and no-brainers and that it seemed that very few of them were in place here.
As for my advice; there was just no escalation strategy at all here. HR is just like anything else with costs increasing exponentially the longer something goes undetected. That's why good HR isn't even so much about policy (although setting rules, no matter what they are, does help a lot,) but more about setting up structures so that you can resolve conflicts at an earlier stage.
[1] You can even see it in their statements where the first was the 'minimize legal risk' school of thought whereas the second was 'maximize empathy' kind of thinking.
I'm curious if something like tinder could be used to solve the question of how workplace romances could begin without exposing the company to issues.
Basically, a tinder like system would allow employees to opt in or out of the possibility of workplace romance. Someone that isn't interested in any unwanted advances at work would swipe no to everyone and therefore any advance would be an unwanted advance. On the other hand, swiping yes to someone is acknowledgement that you are open to a workplace romance and that you acknowledge the risks of making an advance and you have clear responsibilities on how to handle it like an adult and in a way that absolves the company of responsibility.
Furthermore, if this system were managed by the company, they would have records of opting in from both parties. Any advances outside those recorded by the system, would clearly indicate who is to blame.
There may be some unintended consequences here, but this seems at least to be a better system than the status quo.
Maybe Tinder can try to pivot into a tool for human resources departments?
But the question remains, who is to blame? In my opinion, mature adults should be able to calmly handle both rejection and an unwelcome advance. In my opinion, it's the person who's handling it worse at the workplace (being annoying, obnoxious, ...) and whose work is more affected who is to blame, at least from the perspective of the employer.
Anyhow, I don't think this would work - Tinder works on the premise that you're swiping strangers left and right, so you're not that affected by rejection... If you swipe yes someone you know, and you don't get a match, you know you've been swiped no, so the rejection must still be handled maturely...
It's demeaning, unprofessional, and a legal nightmare that this would be part of the terms of employment!
It also gets consent totally wrong. The onus shouldn't be on employees to explicitly swipe, "No: I do not want to be subjected to sexual and romantic advances at work." That has to be the default.
Plus, are managers involved? If your boss swipes "yes" and you swipe "no", how are you to know that won't bias their evaluation and treatment of you?
And when someone swipes "yes", what are they swiping "yes" to? Being flirted with? Being asked out on a date? Being propositioned for sex? Are you proposing that "Hey, she swiped yes" stands up as a refutation of any sexual harassment claims?
Etc. etc.
Think it through, man -- this would astronomically increase workplace drama and legal woes, not reduce them.
It's hard for Americans to consider the merits of workplace romance because it's been hammered into them for 20-30 years now that it's always wrong all the time. Having worked professionally on 3 continents, the American approach would be picked apart by many foreigners as easily as you picked apart my proposal.
Truth be told, in the US we're at a local maxima once you consider that alternative solutions may do a better job of increasing lifetime happiness (i.e. there is a non-trivial chance that your ideal partner(s) is/are someone you work with). It's hard to recognize the situation here as a local maxima if you've never had the opportunity to work in a culture where you could date people with whom you work.
Cool assumptions, bro.
And why propose a thought experiment if you're just going to dismiss criticism as a reflection of the critic's nationality, instead of evaluating them on their own merits?
You didn't address a single counterpoint I made; it sounds like you're not interested in a "thought experiment" so much as proposing your idea and then not hearing any criticism.
I still feel like it's less likely they were willing to throw a co-founder under the bus, but would go to such great lengths to protect "some engineer".
umm...I've got something to tell you...
Even if it's just pure cowboy style with a "fixed some stuff" like comment, the context of the change can be looked at. Honestly, this claim seemed like the most tangible one made. I'd say 1 of two things should happen regarding it, either someone else needs to get their walking papers or a pretty substantial apology is owed.
Have I missed anything?
Back to point of Julie's complaints --- we're adults here and if there's a pattern of behavior from a coworker, then documentation is your best friend. In fact, that should be an automatic rule: any communication with colleagues in the workplace should be documented, either via email or chat, and kept short and to the point otherwise. If there exists a friendship between coworkers and there is fallout due to conflict, assuming there is no evidence, the accuser/accused should just let it go because that's what friends do. You can't demand professionalism when the principle hasn't been observed in the first place.
Being a man, woman, father, mother, doesn't absolve one's responsibility from presenting evidence for the truth, even if they have a history of being honest. More importantly, our attitudes towards the accused should initially be of giving benefit of the doubt.
Consider how what the cost is to Horvath here, how she can say whatever she wants, launching a huge firestorm, and oh, 1/3 accusations is provable. (And one, about the guy removing her code, is actually pretty much disproven.)
Continuing to call the workplace "toxic" is objectively and clearly an overstatement as well.
"When you've dug yourself into a hole you should stop digging"
I agree. I don't think it's worthwhile for the Github PR team to continue to address and give legitimacy to those voices who are beyond reason and simply want to express anger.
This additional information (the identity and reputation of the investigator and the level of detail investigated including review of the commits) taken together with JAH's commits to her own public projects [0][1] and exaggerated and overly dramatic behavior, there is more than enough reasonable doubt to vindicate the male engineer being accused of misconduct. Absent a reliable witness to the claimed misconduct or other solid irrefutable evidence (not just perceptions of what happened), the principle of innocent until proven guilty should extend to this accused individual as well.
To do so implies that she invented those feelings to further her case. There is absolutely nothing in the record to support such an accusation.
Going to the media first is the very definition of "exaggerated dramatic behavior designed to attract attention".
There's nothing wrong with going to the media first with a story of gender discrimination if you have the hard evidence to support your allegations. If you don't, taking that nuclear option without evidence will only discredit you because choosing the nuclear irrefutable evidence is careless and unjustified. If anything, JAH has actually damaged the ability for other women to use the nuclear option in the future. A hypothetical future situation in which a woman steps forward with gender discrimination claims like those made by JAH will be met with greater skepticism than in an alternate reality where she had stuck to only making claims about those things she could prove.
She should have only gone to the media with the story of misconduct by TPH and his wife (which near as I can tell was gender neutral with respect to the misconduct in question, since both men and women were impacted.)
Ideally they'd also apologise for accidentally enabling a work-environment that led to Julie-Ann feeling unsafe in the first place but, as even Julie-Ann herself acknowledges, this response is largely satisfactory.
It's just sad that it took so much to get there; but I guess that's how progress happens.
I don't know how they could have done a better job. (I am not saying they could not have done a better job, just that I can't think of it).
I'm sure that if I was under that kind of stress from one of the Founder's of the company I was working for, it would most likely contribute to me seeing other encounters as something that it wasn't...
failure to enforce an agreement that his spouse should not work in the office
It had been a big enough problem before that they had a formal agreement prohibiting it.
After being presented with the results we felt Tom could no longer be an effective leader at GitHub. He offered his resignation and we accepted.
I mean he'll have trouble hiring people to work for him. I'd certainly think twice (and this is not an entirely casual statement since I'm an engineer and a startup guy) - not because of the allegations, but because the result of a careful investigation was that he made it an unpleasant place to work for some of his employees by being confrontational, disregarding complaints, and being insensitive to something that wasn't a problem for him personally. I do not want to work in a place like that, and I'd be worried that he'd do it again.
It won't stop everybody from working for him. He'll still get plenty of graduate attention. But putting together a good startup team is hard, and this kind of verdict might make it impossible.
Edits - let me clarify: I think this would go far in explaining why Horvath is reacting as she has been doing to the report. But I'm struggling to understand if this means that the personal subjective interpretation is more valuable to the truth than an objective independent investigation? (Now I think that the investigation on the whole may not have been at all independent - only to ensure that Github was in the clear legally - with no obligation to the truth or to expose any other things - but I think that's out of this side discussion!)
An investigation found no legal liability of sexism but that doesn't mean there isn't a culture aspect to it. On the other hand Horvath's experience with the founder may have colored her view of the culture.
I'm saying Github's interpretation of events and Horvath's interpretation are consistent, they don't conflict, hence they can both be true at the moment.
She says that she strongly believes that this would have not happened to a man, and the report says that they found no evidence of sexism in the workplace. This has been brought up before, but is it at all possible that some of the treatment she received was because she is difficult to work with, rather than because she is a girl? Nothing in the report points to anything having happened that was specific to what JAH talked about, could it in fact be the case that people are treating a sub-par, or difficult employee (in their own eyes) differently to others around her, and in her mind, in (what I asssume is) a predominantly male workplace, she sees this as discrimination? I don't know what to think, but unless there's any evidence either for or against, I think the only reasonable assumption that we can make is that there may have been fault on both parties sides, the extent of which is unknown.
Ms. Horvath was right with her allegations about a founder and his wife, unbelievable as that wife story sounded at first.
She flat-out lied about the engineer who sabotaged her because she wouldn't sleep with him.
And she lied about not being contacted or interviewed in the course of the investigation.
The truth of all this is undecidable by the public, of course.
This drama can go on virtually forever, unless it is settled in court.
Maybe it's best to detach oneself emotionally from it. It's impossible to choose sides.
Still, there's a bitter taste left here. The whole situation remains somehow murky and nobody has benefited from this "clarification". My personal opinion is that if you have a disagreement and there's grounds for legal proceedings, you should start the legal proceedings. It might be an uphill battle, it might eventually prove useless, but at least it's a final answer to a question.
My guess is that this public storm did not help anybody: neither Julie, nor Github, nor the movement against sex discrimination in the workplace. Everybody still thinks they were right and no "final" solution was shown. And most importantly, with regard to the real issue (the discrimating treatment), nobody DID nothing. The founder just quit (without being accused of much and without "paying" for anything), Github is still the best place in the world to work in (as it was before this thing happened) and somehow Julie seems to be a little more paranoid than before (hey what can we do, an independent expert did not confirm her story).
Back to square one on this one.
I don't think so. Maybe that's the sentiment here among some HNers, but the industry at large reacted differently. Most importantly, it raised awareness to the fact that some women may feel unsafe or uncomfortable in a work environment even if their mail coworkers and bosses don't feel they're doing anything wrong.
I'm glad to see the claims of sexual and gender based harassment don't seem to be true. Perhaps larger companies should make it part of their culture to have a periodic audit similar to this investigation?
Not to be pedantic, but it implies there is no systemic sexual and gender based harassment. It doesn't say anything about Julie-Ann's experiences except that they're not provable.
Defining culpability would never come from them. A labour law suit would be the ticket, although I'm not sure under what umbrella it falls under in the US.
I've been in a situation where I was reasonably certain that I observed fiduciary misconduct. At the time I basically had three choices:
(1) stay at the company and ignore it (2) stay at the company and collect irrefutable evidence and expose the wrongdoing; or (3) ignore it and leave the company because it was not my problem to deal with and would be more damaging to my career to do something about it.
There was never a 4th option: "expose the wrongdoing with no concrete evidence". I didn't have enough to substantiate any allegations. It's entirely possible that I could have even been mistaken about what actually happened since my relationship with the person in question was rocky and I might have been projecting my negative perceptions of that person onto a novel situation. Without collecting concrete evidence to prove my allegations, I couldn't even be certain of what happened, much less certain that exposing the wrongdoing without evidence would be fruitful.
The burden of proof was the responsibility of the accuser, and in this instance the accuser has failed to substantiate claims made.
That's before you even get to any problems before you reach the rape kit stage - I've read way too many depressing posts on r/twoxchromosomes and other sites where women don't even know if they've been raped because they don't remember it after being drugged (good luck with a kit that late) or don't think it "crosses the line" or are just like "it was a bad night" if their boyfriend rips their clothing off and tries to have sex with them even though they were saying "no" and crying the whole time. Usually comes hand in hand with a culture that likes to perpetuate bullshit like "you can't change your mind in the middle of having sex" and "married people can't be raped by their partner".
Gooood luck with rape reporting in general, there's a reason - no, many reasons - why so many people keep silent.
I think that this case demands a lot of suspension of judgement since absolute judgements one way or the other are so damning/redeeming to opposite sides of the dispute, and since the allegations are so difficult to demonstrate or disprove. I think that it's most likely that neither absolute judgement of wrongdoing is perfectly explanatory of the situation.
So, for me, it's best to assume that both sides genuinely feel that they are not in the wrong, and that the facts are not as clear as either side supposes. It's deeply unsatisfying, and if one party or the other truly is malicious and completely to blame, then it's unfair. But I think that it's the most fair conclusion that can be drawn with the information available.
When I worked at a large corporation, it was easy to find people who absolutely loved the culture of the company, and people who absolutely hated it. If you drilled down with each person, it would come down to their personal experiences with their everyday team members. Daily interactions are often extrapolated to the culture of the company as a whole, for better or worse.
So I think both Julie and the report are right. For Julie, her experience was very horrible, and since it involved a cofounder, it's no surprise at all that she saw this as a systemic part of the GitHub culture.
And if the other female employees did not have to endure similar experiences, it's no wonder that others do not share the belief of GitHub as a toxic workplace.
The takeaway for founders and leaders: culture can't just be set from the top, it must be reinforced at every level of an organization.
Short of having audio or video or evidence those who backed GitHub feel vindicated, those who backed Julie Ann Horvath will see this as the "Mad Men" culture of Silicon Valley exercising their muscle to supress the story. The small but sane few in-between who were waiting for the full story will never get it because the other two sides are just going to throw hyperbole until the cows come home.
I wonder if we will ever be able to have a sane conversation about the "sexism in the Valley" or the fact that it concerns itself with something that is so technologically intrenched the mob mentality of the Internet will always draw centre stage.
Part of having this discussion requires not writing off the entire discussion as impossible to have because of YOUR stereotyped view of the participants.
Way to open it up with a statement that's guaranteed to be 100% false.
It just made it difficult to digest the rest of your comment, which I actually completely agree with.
The previous public statement was a disgrace and is exactly what you get when you let lawyers recommend you what to do; which includes soulless recommendation to fire anyone who raises harassment complaints after three months; even if they are valid.
This statement is OK and I'll give them a pass on it.
Perhaps, but if so it will never happen in public. There are too many people craving the moment to toss their incendiary in for that to happen.
I am glad that you are satisfied with this response and it brought you back to GitHub. You are one of the open-minded ones. I probably could stand to be a bit more open-minded myself.
What would it take to change your mind?
One of the signs of an irrational belief about the world is that it's not falsifiable -- you can't conceive of a possible future observation that would cause you to change your belief.
For example, in this case, there are things well within the realm of physical possibility that would in fact change the mind of every single person "tarring and feathering" GitHub, such as Julie Ann Horvath and Melissa Severini publicly announcing this was all a hoax. And vice versa, of course.
Of course we all think that's unlikely happen, but the point stands that people on both sides of this discussion came to their beliefs through a combination of evidence and emotion, and could be dissuaded by the same; and your not-so-subtle suggestion that people on the side opposite you are being "irrational" is unfounded and in bad faith.
[1]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jr/how_to_convince_me_that_2_2_3/
Obviously I'm not saying everything that comes out of a whisteblower's mouth is absolute truth, but if you take GitHub's words at face value without considering their financial interests, etc, you're thinking very uncritically.
In this case we have the difficult choice of either dismissing claims of harassment and sexism, which is not a good thing to do if we want to help put an end to those things, or uncritically accepting someone's word without any evidence to back it up. And in fact with evidence going the other way, however insubstantial it may be. Doing that would not be good for the precept that one is innocent until proven guilty, which is something that is important to preserve for the disadvantaged, even when it benefits those in power.
At this time the only people who are making verifiable claims are github: They have hired an investigator who they believe to be competent and impartial. They name this person and their record can be investigated by anyone who cares. The investigator's report turned up evidence of bad behavior by the CEO and they took it seriously enough that he was removed.
Where do we go from here? As I said above, neither road is desirable and there isn't an easy answer. But I don't think that you can just say we should accept Ms. Horvath's word uncritically either, at least not when we have nothing to back up her claims.
I think there are some good reasons to assume Julie's credibility. Like other whistleblowers, the consequences for speaking up are extreme. Not a lot of people I know would open themselves up to the kind of harassment and character assassination that Julie has for no reason.
While it's good that she hasn't turned out to be "unemployable," as many people insisted, the reality is that she has made her life a lot more difficult by speaking out than she would have if she kept quiet. What would she have gained by lying? I'm open to suggestions, but I feel like most of the things people are saying comes down to "disgruntled employee wants revenge" which I find really unconvincing considering the attacks on her character.
If someone doesn't believe that there is pervasive sexism in ANY male dominated industry, I don't know what I can say to convince them. But the truth is that if any HR person (and that's really what this independent investigator is, an HR contractor) asked people if they experienced sexism at work at any of my jobs, people would've been reluctant to be the one to call it out even though it is pervasive.
You're right though, I don't pretend to know objectively what happened. I just think there are a lot of good reasons not to weigh the words of a whistleblower equally with the company trying to protect itself and its investors.
Some people really like attention. I've known people who'll lie about things like that just for the sake of being in the public eye.
Alternately, she might have not expected the harassment, and thought of it as extra fodder for getting GitHub to compensate her for the stuff that their investigation says definitely happened.
To be clear: I'm not saying either of these is the case for Horvath. Just that the hypothetical "she was knowingly lying" case could be explained by these motivations.
Really? Like what? Can you give an example relevant to this discussion?
> Alternately, she might have not expected the harassment
Lol, I don't think it's possible to be a woman on the internet as much as she is and think something like that. This statement is ignorant of the reality of literally every woman on the internet who criticizes a predominantly male community.
> To be clear: I'm not saying either of these is the case for Horvath. Just that the hypothetical "she was knowingly lying"
Sure, I just think those hypothetical explanations are weak considering the arguments I put forward. I think Julie would have to be really dense not to know that coming forward the way she did would have consequences.
Sure... here's a recent news story that springs to mind, from back in December: http://abcnews.go.com/US/waitress-anti-gay-tipping-scandal-l...
That's someone who made up an attack, presumably for the purpose of gaining sympathy. I doubt they intended it to go national like it did, but...
Almost every thing else could devolve to he-said-she-said (or she-said-she-said in this case). However code commits (and subsequent reverts) are extensively tracked.
Assuming they can roughly pinpoint the time window involved I genuinely wonder how they conclusively proved that it did not happen.
If it were true, then that engineer should have been immediately terminated FOR CAUSE and sued in court. Also given the fact that he is still employed (and presumable just recently promoted) would have made GitHub look much worse. Regardless, it looks like that allegation was unsubstantiated,
> The commit history, push log, and all issues and pull requests involving Julie and the accused engineer were reviewed. The investigation considered all possible commits surrounding the accusation of passive-aggressive code removal. One instance was found where the engineer updated and broke some CSS in an internal application, which was fixed in a later commit. The investigator determined this change did not appear malicious.
Sounds like they reviewed all commits by the accused person, and found nothing that fit the accusation.
Her response on Twitter, on the other hand, will stand for all time as a testament to her character and I'm afraid it won't do her any favours as she comes across as having a strong sense of entitlement.
I don't think people should be expected to accept mistreatment. But it swings both ways - they shouldn't be allowed to believe that their point of view is any better or more right than anyone else's and the things she said smack of someone who is angry they didn't get what they wanted.
There were hurt feelings at Github. I can appreciate that. In the public eye, though, you have to handle it with dignity - you have to be beyond reproach. And I think the things she said on her Twitter feed have done a remarkable job of painting her in the worst light possible and put her credibility beyond repair.
I also heard that statistics say, there are more false negatives (= woman said bad things happened but investigation says it's untrue) than false positives (=woman successfully lied about things happened).
All that decreases my trust in such a clear "false positive" investigation result, although I admire GitHub for publicly working on that issue. I hope that beside saying that they didn't do much wrong, that they increase whatever they are doing to keep the workplace safe and healthy for the female employees.
Why the apology on Github's part after it was concluded that there was no gender-based harassment towards the engineer in question? Is this apology pertaining to the other issues?
To claim its an "industry thing" is naïve. Open-source isn't an industry and almost every single open-source community begins and matures absent any industry involvement at all. By the time business opportunities arise in a community, the culture is already mature and well-formed.
NodeJS for example is a viable part of the tech industry now, but 4-5 years ago it was a bunch of hobbyists. There was no industry to speak of. I imagine that most of the members of that community back then were men, just as it is today. This suggests that the entire NodeJS like almost every other tech community has formed its identity well before every being an "industry".
Want to solve this issue? Find out how to make sure future new tech communities are more egalitarian and inclusive from day one. Trying to bolt that on afterwards may mitigate the harms, but it certainly isn't going to fix them. Path dependency has presents problems, but you can't just ignore the role of path dependency in getting us to where we are now.
So its clear that the idea of gender roles starts much earlier. Now whether you think that gender roles are a bad thing, or you think they are a reasonable evolutionary strategy that has contributed to our success (we are certainly not the only mammals who adopt gender roles), that's a separate question.
There are also certain biological reasons that may lead to more men being attracted to these fields - Robert and Chevrier found boys performed significantly better in spatial tasks than girls, but girls performed better at language tasks. So maybe as programming moves from lower-level languages (more spatially oriented) to higher level languages, we'll see more women get into the field.
I personally have worked with some excellent women in the tech world, and think the presence of at least some women on the team changes the dynamic for the better, but if we want to do it correctly, we cannot pretend that biology doesn't play a role. We'll have to make the strengths of the different genders work together.
Be it GitHub, Mozilla, what not - the last weeks have been particularly sad.
Julie Ann Horvath Describes Sexism And Intimidation Behind Her GitHub Exit [2] HN [4]
GitHub Engineer Quits After Alleging Gender Harassment [3]
[0] https://github.com/blog/1823-results-of-the-github-investiga...
[1] https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore
[2] http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes...
[3] http://valleywag.gawker.com/github-engineer-quits-after-alle...
Can we now stop touting immature companies and bad employership as the future corporate organization? Please?
When you put people together in an organization, shit happens. There has to be absolutely no malice involved for things like this to happen. Shit just happens. People fuck up, and sometimes their fuck ups hurt other people. I did it, you did it, we all did.
But not creating a decent company structure to deal with that reality and instead make your company an experiment in social Darwinism under the guise of "meritocracy" and "no managers" is utterly irresponsible. It's begging for shit to escalate and people to take advantage.
If you have over an x-number of people in your company, you need people to manage that, which has fuck all to do with hierarchy.
So Github "recently we hired an experienced head of HR". Over 200 employees, over $100 million in funding, and now they finally fucking bother to hire someone to look out for them.
I'm not so much pissed off at Github as I am at the entire tech community that have been cheer-leading running a company so badly.
"People are their own managers" works fine when it's just about work. But it isn't. It never is, because they are people. With all the dumb, stupid and sometimes ugly stuff they do besides just work.
Employees are not lab rats.
P.s.
And don't use "rapid growth" as an excuse. It was an ideology. Github's leadership didn't believe they needed to be prepared, that somehow these things would magically not happen in their happy start-up commune.
"We've confirmed with a GitHub employee that "the wife" is in fact Theresa Preston-Werner, making her husband complicit in covering up (or at least condoning) repeated allegations of harassment and abuse at the company he helped create. We're told this is certainly not the first time the Preston-Werners have treated a female employee this way: Melissa Severini, the company's very first hire, was allegedly paid to sign a non-disparagement agreement after being victimized by Theresa Preston-Werners and subsequently terminated. Other employees have been pressured to do pro bono work for Theresa Preston-Werner's own startup, Omakase." (From ValleyWag, March 17th)
According to Severini's Twitter feed (as of early April), the "investigator" never contacted her.
- Founder allegations: sounds like they already came to the conclusion that TPW wasn't acting appropriately, so I'm not sure what the fact that it happened before adds to that.
- Engineer allegations: this is about people other than TPW.
- Github's working environment: Maybe Severini could have added some dishing on TPW, in particular (but not necessarily the company). But given the non-disparagement agreement and the fact that her feelings are apparently general knowledge, was another interview with her really necessary?
As @waterlesscloud says above, I'm wondering, "Is anyone disputing the activities of the Preston-Werners at this point?" The fact that it's happened before is relevant if you want to dish more on TPW's character or the fact that GH made a mistake, both of which have already been done. Adding more at this point is almost sensationalist.
If they had a similar thing happen a while ago where someone was let go, in a company that prides itself for employee retention no less, that changes our evaluation.
It just means they condoned Tom's behaviour knowing first hand that it was problematic and had been for a long time; essentially lending credence to Julie-Ann's statement that the culture was toxic.
Based on the response I'd say that there's a good chance the toxicity might have largely stemmed from the management team not wanting to oust a co-founder, so there's a good chance it's ""fixed"" now, but that still doesn't excuse their lack of inaction until now.
I'm not sure how they wouldn't have known about the settlement with Severind, if that's what you're talking about.
For the rest of your post, yes, I agree, it means they made a big mistake (even bigger? Probably.) And that mistake probably did contribute to a bad* environment, as tons of people have already mentioned with the PWs and pressure about the wife's work. My point is that these shortcomings have already been documented and admitted. What did the fact that it's happened before add to that?
* Note: Be very careful, though, about accepting adjectives such as "toxic" at face value: she can say whatever she wants without damaging herself in this case, but people have a funny tendency to use strong words to describe things that, objectively, just aren't that big of a deal. For example, my school's newspaper had a reporter complaining about being "violently rejected" because someone didn't respond to a text. No joke.
Call my well poisoned by that experience, but based on her Twitter posts (some guy deleting her code for not f*ing her, for which there is no proof), I don't know how reliable her description is.
This implies that this is an endemic behavior from tis person, and it would seem that she is an organizational cancer.
This would appear to me to be a super red-flag on her involvement in any company; ESPECIALLY given the fact that she appears to be branding herself as some sort of women-in-business-thought-leader....
From my outside, very ignorant view-point, she seems to be working exactly against what she claims to be leading in; she is an exceedingly poor example of how female business leaders should operate.
My personal opinion would be that she felt like she had some status/power and it just turned her into a horrible person where she thought that said power/status meant she could actt however she liked.
Pretty vague, are there any details on WTF happened? Also, if IS valleywag...
This report clearly states there were issues with the Preston-Werners, and he's been made to leave the company.
It's a bit of a she-said, she-said situation, except that it seems to have happened before with the Preston-Werners and Melissa Severini.
Never ever heard of something like this in EU and I can find only articles related to US. Anyone can instruct me?
Keep in mind that this isn't an employment contract clause, it is a cash bribe to stay quiet. Your freedom is not impaired: you have the choice between saying whatever you like or taking the money.
A crime is a misdemeanor/felony/etc, not a fine.
I'm not a lawyer tho so I could be wrong.
Far more torrid things have happened at the biggest companies in the world. Stuff like outright sexual favors for advancement. Just bad stuff, the big difference seems to be active HR, active corporate attorneys and the general ban on talking about what goes on at work in your social media. It doesn't take many 6 figure settlements to "fix the culture" at a place, and if fixing it means removing a highup officer, that happens too (http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2012/11/13/lockhe...)
Honestly, I'd think more start-ups would start to develop more serious twitter and social media policies. I don't know of one that didn't have some disgruntled former employees, just due to the demands and the personal nature of start-ups.
OK great. So, you're able to settle on terms both parties find awful -- but better than the alternative. Whew. But a month after you do, your opponent might go out there trash-talking. Then you do, in response. And your whole settlement has unraveled.
As a result, it is entirely normal and appropriate for two parties who aren't stupid, to agree to remain silent.
If the settlement has one party paying the other (as is often the case), you can imagine that they will pay somewhat more for a final settlement -- one that doesn't unravel -- because that's worth more.
It's nothing to do with gags or free speech. It's just the kind of painful common sense you acquire from having gone through any sort of legal dispute -- or if you haven't, that hopefully your attorney has, and hopefully you are listening to her advice that you're paying for.
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" doesn't mean that you can't pay me to be quiet, if you and I both agree to it.
http://www.hrlaw.co.uk/site/infobank/infobankarticle/silence... http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/c...
Although they're more likely to be colloquially called "gagging orders".
The only problem is that the only source we have on this is Valleywag, a publication whose integrity is roughly on the same level as the stuff you stock lavatories with.
That was one of Julie's original complaints about the original post.
If I'm investigating a complaint by someone, it seems reasonable that the person making the complaint would be the main person to talk to. Otherwise its impossible to say you did a thorough investigation.
You have to read the article if you are going to comment on it.
So to quote another hacker new user "You have to read the article if you are going to comment on it." :)
Why can't this be stated as: GitHub is committed to building a safe environment for ALL employees and all PEOPLE in our community.
I've worked with very few outright sexists/racists/whatever-ists in tech (and judging by this discussion, they definitely exist, they're loud, but the vast majority of us have a consensus as to what we think of them). But I've worked with a large number of people (and occasionally/regretfully have ventured into this group myself) who can be described as "equal opportunity jackasses".
The reality is this - the damage of being an "equal opportunity asshole" is felt more strongly by marginalized groups. When a white male is mistreated by $jackass, the thought process goes like: "$jackass is being a jackass to me.". When a member of $marginalized_group is mistreated by said jackass, the thought process is: "$jackass is being a jackass to me. Is it because I'm a member of $marginalized_group?" and every future interaction with that person is tinged with that thought process: "I'm still $marginalized_group... Is $jackass going to be a jackass to me?" The motivation of the jackass is irrelevant - they creates a space where the negativity falls more heavily on marginalized groups - that is, behavior that isn't overtly discriminatory creates a space that is.
Can we please try being nice to each other for a change? Not just because it creates a more inclusive environment, but because it creates one that's a whole lot healthier for all of us. We in tech idolize a whole lot of people who can probably be described as equal opportunity assholes (Jobs, Bezos, and Torvalds immediately jump to mind), but really - let's look at what our words and actions are doing to each other. I don't think there's a single one of us here who isn't guilty of this at some point - and I don't think any of us can promise never to be a jackass in the future. But let's not call it a mark of honor -- or behavior to be imitated. If you're being a jackass, don't justify it. Apologize for it. And try to do better in the future.
Sorry, but mature and responsible people would look out for bad attitudes and bad workplace relationships since before the company begins operation. The only people who are "unprepared" to deal with abusive behaviour are those insensitive and morally corrupt enough to tolerate bad people and bad habits until actual trouble begins.
It sounds like external social pressure is forcing GitHub management to grow up all of a sudden, confirming the existence of serious problems.
Also, I wish false allegations in this world will be treated in the very same way if were true: so instead of "We apology with Julie ..." I prefer "Julie said in public false allegations, we'll made a lawsuit against her"...
I mean Julie put tons of "bad" on top of a company without any proof (about sexism) and she exasperate (seeing the report) mostly everything.
Should this be allowed to do and be unpunished?
It would be good to hear from people with perspective what they think the next steps should be.
If you guys want to frame this issue in terms of gender that's what you should be talking about.
isn't one of the whole things about git as a VCS the ability to re-write its history?
It is not sexism if you are harassed by the person of your own gender.
Realistically, whether you're offended by GitHub's sexism or data collection policies or not, it doesn't make any sense to use them strictly from a pragmatic cost-to-benefit perspective. They simply charge far too much for far too little.
Subjectively, I haven't found GitHub's API to be great to work with, but this is because they use OAuth and OAuth is just needlessly complicated and inconvenient.
I was impressed by GitHub's response in this case. A founder being forced out* of the company s/he founded, especially one as white hot as GitHub, is not a decision made lightly. It signaled to me that the issue had been taken seriously, albeit too late. But I am comfortable supporting them going forward.
*That Mr. Preston-Warner was forced out is my own between-the-lines reading of his resignation once he lost support of the board.
This is NOT something that would happen to man and had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that she's a woman.
The facts are:
1) We have an ex-employee who is very disgruntled.
2) Said employee has laid some serious allegations regarding genderism
3) No allegation is provable nor has been proven
4) Other female employees interviewed have countered the allegations
5) Independent audit found no proof whatsoever, yet commented that some things in the company could use improvement (as with all companies, especially large ones)
This is not a sexism issue here guys. It's a typical case of an upset ex-employee -- it happens all the time, just with much less media.
Other Github employees even said she was really not good at her work, difficult to work with, didn't except criticisms, etc.
also, most ex employees don't immediately attempt to summon a torch wielding mob by baiting with the "misogynist culture" card.
"The investigation found Tom Preston-Werner in his capacity as GitHub’s CEO acted inappropriately, including confrontational conduct, disregard of workplace complaints, insensitivity to the impact of his spouse's presence in the workplace, and failure to enforce an agreement that his spouse should not work in the office. There were also issues surrounding the solicitation of GitHub employees for non-GitHub business and the inappropriate handling of employee concerns regarding those solicitations."
It'll be interesting to see how this situation shakes out for this auditor, but I suspect they'll keep ticking along just fine.
It's entirely possible for one to look up an independent auditors credentials and history out-of-band. If you can't find anything to substantiate Github's claims of the auditor's record/independence, then call that out.
Please change the title of the article from: "Julie Ann Horvath Describes Sexism And Intimidation Behind Her GitHub Exit", to "Julie Ann Horvath Describes Harassment From The Founders Wife, The Founder, And Has A Problem With Hula Hoops (For Some Reason)"
"GitHub’s CEO acted inappropriately, including confrontational conduct, disregard of workplace complaints, insensitivity to the impact of his spouse's presence in the workplace, and failure to enforce an agreement that his spouse should not work in the office. There were also issues surrounding the solicitation of GitHub employees for non-GitHub business and the inappropriate handling of employee concerns regarding those solicitations."
If that described the CEO of my company I'd want him out too. And that's GitHub's own words.
So what can we learn from this apart from the obvious deficiencies of said CEO and said CEO's wife?
1. Nothing causes more trouble at a company than two women who don't get along. I'm sorry to say this, and I know it's politically incorrect, but women are catty and it's very difficult to get women to work together without all sorts of drama.
2. Women in tech frequently play the gender card when their jobs don't work out. Whatever the reason for their resignation or termination, they are highly likely to perceive that their gender was a major factor in the outcome.
I mean.
Most people already forgot this.
The people who want to make this a bigger issue than it is not going to be convinced.
I think most people didn't think they needed to explain more than they already had.
Interestingly, the "divisiveness" of this rug was apparently turned into an issue by none other than Julie Ann Horvath.
(http://www.businessinsider.com/githubs-ceo-ditches-meritocra...)
Now I absolutely think that Preston-Werner's wife and Preston-Werner himself acted extremely inappropriataly towards Horvath. But, since it appears that Horvath's other claims do not seem to have a basis, she has yet again taken a situation where she had a legitimate point to make and completely blew it out of proportion.
Wanstrath will learn eventually that he sometimes just has to say no more. There are more important goals for his organization to accomplish than to be accommodating to every single grievance.
It just seems awfully silly. The legitimate point here - that there should be more female engineers - seems a) not specific to GitHub and b) to be lost under a shroud of phony outrage over a rug.
> The main finding is consistent across the three studies: when an organization is explicitly presented as meritocratic, individuals in managerial positions favor a male employee over an equally qualified female employee by awarding him a larger monetary reward.
From: http://asq.sagepub.com/content/55/4/543.short
Which was recognized by Chris Wanstrath when they removed it:
> @defunkt: We thought ‘meritocracy’ was a neat way to think of open source but now see the problems with it. Words matter. We’re getting a new rug.
That calling something a meritocracy when it isn't may have a paradoxical effect may be true. But I'm not sure it warrants getting rid of meritocracy as the guiding principle of an organization. We should just be doing a better job of being meritocratic.
This is how you sound.
There's been a lot of failed Marxist societies, but some implementations, the Kibbutz for example, has been relatively successful. One could also argue that HN and startup culture is an example of workers seizing the means of production.
The meritocrats - the 'beneficiaries of nepotism' in the article - aren't actually where they are (wholly) because of merit. It's because they were born into a social structure where they were already beneficiaries of wealth and privilege, and were able to accrue various 'merit badges' because of this wealth and privilege. But this isn't actually meritocracy.
What I'm saying is that the system that the author claims to be meritocratic actually isn't - if it were, starting with our early childhood education system, it would be promoting people based on talent and aptitude and not keeping them down because they were born into the wrong class.
And this is what I'm saying actually constitutes meritocracy. Do I think we should be advancing people simply because they are poor? I do not. Similarly I do not think we should be advancing people simply because they are already rich. I think we should be giving those who have been historically denied these opportunities the same opportunities to advance as we do to everyone else, elevating them rather than diminishing others. That to me would represent an actual 'meritocracy', not the false version that the coiner of the term is criticizing.
I just don't see what a better alternative to this perfect meritocracy would be. I don't see any alternative proposed. I don't see a better way to allocate labor. You choose people for positions that are well suited to those positions. How else would we have it? How else would we build/accomplish/organize anything?
A selection of one is a rejection of many. Likewise, choosing to fulfill a single duty means choosing not to perform all other duties. Should we do nothing? Should we hire no one? In the end I think this critique of meritocracy collapses to Marxism or some form of communitarianism - a nice idea in principle, but a failure in practice. To even remotely be able to accomplish the same kind of technological and societal progress that a true meritocracy is capable of you need to make decisions about who is and who isn't suited to particular functions.
So this seems like less a criticism of meritocracy than a criticism of the economic inequality that necessarily emerges in a society where individuals are different from each other.
Also, I somewhat disagree with the idea that a coiner of a term gets to decide its meaning in perpetuity. Language changes and terms get repurposed and given new connotations
The point is we can’t be truly meritocratic. It’s a utopic ideal that doesn’t hold up in the real world. Those who are deciding what merit is are the ones who already have power. Also, there are many barriers to entry before supposed meritocratic judging can even take place. The goal isn’t to completely abandon the idea of judging people based on their accomplishments, but to recognize that the supposed ideal of meritocracy is a harmful fantasy, and to think more critically and about how we evaluate people.
Selenda Deckelmann’s on meritocracy in the Postgres community:
“[…] in a truly meritocratic organization, privilege wouldn’t matter. But the truth is, not everyone can join the Postgres project. […] So, ending the pursuit of a mythical meritocracy doesn’t mean that we start accepting code which doesn’t meet high standards, or that all of the sudden we’re going to include more code from people in the bottom 1% of the world in terms of salary. It means that we take a look at different aspects of our project and see what is within our means to open up and make accessible to people who aren’t exactly like us.” — http://www.chesnok.com/daily/2011/03/30/where-meritocracy-fa...
Everything else here is very much worth reading: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy
"The main finding is consistent across the three studies: when an organization is explicitly presented as meritocratic, individuals in managerial positions favor a male employee over an equally qualified female employee by awarding him a larger monetary reward."
The fact of the matter is I don't, which is more, not less, of a reason to be skeptical that the concept of meritocracy is bad because it causes a paradoxical outcome.
I honestly haven't read the study, but I'm skeptical about how its authors reached their conclusion. How are they determining that the male and female job candidates are equally qualified? Are statisticians experts on hiring software engineers or sys admins? Were they directly involved in the hiring process of a group of tech workers? Do they have access to said workers skill assessments?
I think anyone could pick a bunch of tech companies which describe themselves as meritocracies and determine that they hire men more frequently than they do women. I think you would find that to be the norm in any tech company, regardless of how they describe themselves. There are more men in tech. Duh.
I get that you're trying to take a cheap shot, but that wasn't the story as I remember reading it. There was bitterness about the "meritocracy" meme from a lot of people in tech who felt that it discounted their marginalized status. JAH ran into that response while trying to do outreach for the Passion Projects series, and relayed it back to the Github leadership, who responded respectfully.
There's a more complete retelling of that issue here: http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug
>> Horvath and other women at GitHub began to feel as if they were “bearing the brunt” of the rug’s message as well as “being excluded from other communities as a result.”
>> One employee, Horvath says, thought she was rejected for membership in Double Union, a feminist hackerspace, because of the rug. Double Union did parody the rug on its crowdfunding page, but denied that it would reject a possible member because of the rug.
And this idea that someone rejected the employee in question because of a rug sounds very implausible.
If enough people really care Github is not going to be able to hire people and they are going to loose customers.
Do you have any evidence of the opposite? Why so pedantic?
All I can say is that most people I talk with are no longer talking about it and are still using Github, still likes the company so I don't think my view is that far off, but of course it's a personal opinion.
If you don't believe that is the case you are free to disagree but I hardly see any reason for the pedantic voice or the downvotes (not saying that's you).
Good on GitHub for updating.