Hacker News Reader

> I would assume his talk must have been approved internally in some way or form (unless any employee was able to give any talk they wanted without any form of supervision, in which case there's a deeper problem here).

I would detest working at such a place; having to run my technical presentations through a filter would be constricting and off putting.

Unless given by a person in the marketing department, I would never assume a presentation made by an employee reflected the values aims or goals of the company as a whole.

> why wasn't this terrible "joke" cut out from the slides months ago? Why, when the guy was preparing his talk, presumably rehearsing it in front of his coworkers, sending the PDF of the slide to organizers of the event, etc., did no one speak up and say "Dude, that slide is sexist and doesn't add anything of value to your talk - just remove it"?

pfffft, I'm lucky if I've created my decks the day before the presentation. It's not unusual to go to a conference/event and find half the speakers writing decks in the hours before.

> I would detest working at such a place; having to run my technical presentations through a filter would be constricting and off putting.

I think it can be done without being restrictive or off putting. The place I last worked at required all public talks and training sessions to happen internally first. It was a great way to promote constant learning, share new skills and emphasise company values. It had the side effect of being a great way to check presentations, even if that's just checking for typos, but it would also catch this sort of issue.

As many startups are finding, there comes a time, and a size of company, when you do need some process specifically to prevent things like this. It's annoying, but there way ways to make it a positive thing instead of a negative thing.

> Unless given by a person in the marketing department, I would never assume a presentation made by an employee reflected the values aims or goals of the company as a whole.

Unfortunately that's not what the press think, and even more unfortunately, it's often the press view that matters most.

> As many startups are finding, there comes a time, and a size of company, when you do need some process specifically to prevent things like this. It's annoying, but there way ways to make it a positive thing instead of a negative thing.

Quite possibly, but this is one of the lures of an early stage start up for me.

Downed you, and I'm not Atlassian employee. Just because you seem to believe each word in each talk of each employee in each company should be scrutinized by thought police and I don't agree.

I don't believe that "each word in each talk of each employee in each company should be scrutinized".

I do believe that if you're giving a talk on behalf of your company at a major event organized by your company, and your talk contains an extremely inappropriate slide, then either a) your company is terrible at organizing events (and it's a miracle that nothing worse happened) or b) no one in your company cared about that inappropriate slide, in which case your company has terrible culture.

(here gbog is using the 3rd stratagem from Schopenhauer's "Art of Being Right": "Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements")

Quoting you:

> (unless any employee was able to give any talk they wanted without any form of supervision, in which case there's a deeper problem here)

I think any employee being able to give any talk they wanted without helicopter parenting should be the norm. I think one employee saying once one stupid thing should not be the end of the world. I think everyone should be allowed to say stupid things. We do anyway, right?

or c) the presenter slipped it in at the last minute on his own accord.

And was never told ahead of time that risky edgy gender humor is a stupid idea in a professional context.

Kind of shameful that it even has to be said, but I guess it does.

> "I would assume his talk must have been approved internally in some way or form (unless any employee was able to give any talk they wanted without any form of supervision, in which case there's a deeper problem here)."

Your comment hinges on this assumption but it is ludicrous. Especially in this context. It is the antithesis of trusting your employees (and understanding that people sometimes screw up). It does makes me wonder about the kind of companies you've worked at.

Agreed. My company does not review my slides before I present them, they vest me with the responsibility to moderate myself.

Never at a company that made the news in the way Atlassian did, I can tell you that much. ;)

It seems that people interpreted my comment as implying that the talk would be reviewed by some pointy haired boss stamping a stack of forms. That is not what I meant at all.

Rather, that a talk presented at such a venue would be given and vetted internally first, if only for the sake of technical correctness. In my career, I have never given a talk (whether while working for a private company, research lab, etc) without it having been given to colleagues first- again, if only for technical correctness/typos/etc.

So again, here either no one from Atlassian saw the talk until the day of, which is terrible. Or people from Atlassian saw the talk beforehand and no one objected at the slide- which is even worse.

The fact the slide made it into the presentation might be what they mean when they talked about implementing process where it is needed. This is exactly the sort of process that larger companies will have (managers signing off on things) but that startups often attempt to avoid.

If someone didn't sign off on the presentation, then I hope process is implemented that prevent this from happening again, and if it was signed off, it sounds like more employees need some education.

The way the last company I worked for dealt with this stuff was great, all talks and training sessions to be given externally were given internally first, which means multiple employees could give feedback (which was heavily encouraged) and also things like this would hopefully not slip through.

I met Mike Cannon-Brookes at an event that I attended some time ago and I happened to have a reasonably lengthy and interesting chat to him about - amongst other things - the culture at Atlassian. It happened to be the same week when GitHub had that PR disaster related to the apparently inappropriate treatment of one of their staff. I discussed this issue with Mike and asked if Atlassian had a similar view on the efficacy of the flat company structure that Valve, GitHub, et al espouse. He said that no, this was not the case at Atlassian because he felt that this kind of flat structure contributed to a poorer culture in the long run.

Obviously no one and no company is perfect and this story is a case in point, but I came away from that conversation with a much higher opinion of Atlassian than I had previously. It certainly seemed to me that Mike was serious about trying to cultivate a good culture at Atlassian and he also seemed like a genuine, no bullshit kind of guy.

I've also happened to have dealings of the professional networking/information exchange kind with one of the staff at Atlassian and was again impressed by how helpful that person was and the way they conducted themselves.

So in my anecdotal but first person experience, I would say that the culture at Atlassian is probably above par when compared to other similarly sized companies.

I discussed this issue with Mike and asked if Atlassian had a similar view on the efficacy of the flat company structure that Valve, GitHub, et al espouse. He said that no, this was not the case at Atlassian because he felt that this kind of flat structure contributed to a poorer culture in the long run.

Events like the Github fiasco should not be mentioned in the open allocation debate, because it's not like they're rare in a closed-allocation company. They're just as common, if not moreso. It just doesn't surprise us, when that shit goes down at a closed-allocation company, because open-allocation companies are held to a higher standard-- because open allocation companies are better.

Open allocation isn't a panacea. The Github event established that, if it wasn't already obvious. Open allocation isn't perfect. It is, however, superior to closed allocation is almost every way (at least, in software). Closed allocation only works better under severe time constraints.

"Flat organization" is somewhat different and usually (like "unlimited vacation") undesirable. Just as "unlimited vacation" means the policy is undefined, "flat organization" usually means the hierarchy is undefined-- which is dangerous, because "unofficial managers" are more likely to compete with those below them than official, titled ones.

In reality and perhaps paradoxically, true open allocation requires that people with credibility and leadership skill keep the company open and fair, which means that it requires (lightweight) management. It's not the Traditional Dickhead Management (i.e. you subordinate to this assigned person, whose goals may conflict with the company's and yours, or you are fucked) that you see in 90+ percent of companies, but it's not "flat" either. "Flat" is like "anarchy"; not stable. Open allocation, however, is the absolute right way to go.

> Events like the Github fiasco should not be mentioned in the open allocation debate ...

Well I guess you'd have to take that up with Mike as you're really referencing his opinion not mine. In that instance I was neither trying to praise or criticise the kind of company structure that appears to be represented by Valve/GitHub (if "open allocation" better describes this phenomenon then I'll take your word for that). In fact I only mentioned it because it was the context within which my discussion of Atlassian's culture began on the evening in question.

I personally find this open allocation concept quite fascinating and think it potentially holds a lot promise. Most people working in corporate environments today would be lying if they said there wasn't huge room for innovation and efficiency gains at their workplace. To my knowledge however, I am unaware of any situation where an open allocation culture has been successfully retro-fitted to an existing corporate environment (if you know of one, I'd be interested). I'm also skeptical in relation to how well an open allocation culture would work out once a company grows beyond a certain inflection point. I'm not well read enough on this matter to put a stake in the ground and define that exact inflection point. But for the sake of illustration, let's say I'd be interested to know how such a culture would work out when applied to an organization consisting of thousands of employees as opposed to dozens or even hundreds.

To my knowledge however, I am unaware of any situation where an open allocation culture has been successfully retro-fitted to an existing corporate environment (if you know of one, I'd be interested).

That is hard as hell, to be honest. Paradoxically, I think it requires a top-down commitment. Companies usually want to try this sort of thing incrementally. So they put their best people into an R&D group that has a fair amount of autonomy. However, over time what seems to happen is that it's resented and attacked, and eventually has to spend more time fighting political battles than innovating. At that point, it's often just as underperforming as the rest of the organization, the experiment is judged a failure, and that autonomy is taken away. It's the "fish frying" problem (http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/).

I'm also skeptical in relation to how well an open allocation culture would work out once a company grows beyond a certain inflection point. I'm not well read enough on this matter to put a stake in the ground and define that exact inflection point.

Gore-tex uses open allocation and is large (almost 10,000 employees, if I recall correctly). What I don't think OA can survive is too-rapid growth. I think it can scale to thousands of employees. I don't think it can tolerate personnel growth at the 100-150%/year levels that VCs want to see.

> Gore-tex uses open allocation and is large (almost 10,000 employees, if I recall correctly).

Thanks for the tip on Gore-tex, hadn't heard about them.

> What I don't think OA can survive is too-rapid growth. I think it can scale to thousands of employees. I don't think it can tolerate personnel growth at the 100-150%/year levels that VCs want to see.

So the important thing is to ensure that there remains a solid core of staff of an influential enough size that understands the open allocation process/culture in order to successfully orient new comers arriving at a reasonable pace. That's potentially quite an interesting insight, I'll remember that one.

I have read your post several times. I still have no idea what you're trying to say.

Valve and Github are well-known for open allocation, which is different from "flat organization". You can both, either without the other, or neither.

"Flat" organization is unstable and therefore probably not desirable. Open allocation (people can transfer freely as they wish) is a good thing and the only way to function at high levels as a technology company.

Well, I don't know why the downvotes but I think this is hyperbolic. I saw the slide, it is crass and bad taste and I don't defend but what you're saying about this as evidence of some terrible culture because someone didn't see this "months ago" is just hard to even take seriously.

So in your mind, presentations that are not made 6 months in advance and are not thoroughly vetted means there is a bad culture problem at a company and not a place where diveristy can flourish? That's just ... I wouldn't want to be anywhere that you would find ideal; it sounds like a horrible place.

Cf my response to other commenters who raised a point similar to yours. Of course I'm not expecting the talk to be thoroughly vetted 6 months in advance. However, demanding that all speakers give their talk internally a month or two in advance, if only for the sake of technical correctness/typos/etc., seems like a very reasonable minimum.

I downvoted you because (a) you jumped to conclusions about the company culture at Atlassian; and (b) you jumped to conclusions about why someone might downvote you.