[ceol]

> GitHub's response neither confirms nor denies any part of the story.

Well, they do say:

    We know we have to take action and have begun a full 
    investigation. While that’s ongoing, and effective   
    immediately, the relevant founder has been put on leave, 
    as has the referenced GitHub engineer. The founder’s wife 
    discussed in the media reports has never had hiring or 
    firing power at GitHub and will no longer be permitted in 
    the office.

So it's not like they're completely silent. They said both the referenced founder and employee have been put on leave and the wife, who apparently was allowed in the office before this, is no longer. They didn't flat-out admit to anything, but it's not like they're totally silent.

[Intermernet]

"We know we have to take action and have begun a full investigation." == "We need to do something about this"

"While that’s ongoing, and effective immediately, the relevant founder has been put on leave, as has the referenced GitHub engineer." == "We don't know what to do yet but we're trying to prevent variables from changing"

"The founder’s wife discussed in the media reports has never had hiring or firing power at GitHub and will no longer be permitted in the office." == "If she said anything along those lines, she had no authority to do so, and misrepresented herself and her role at GitHub"

Yes, it's legalese, but it's not actually saying or admitting anything that anybody didn't already know. It's filling the silence that would otherwise breed directionless slander and conspiracy.

It's manipulative, but arguably well intentioned, and can possibly lead to a more constructive outcome than the free-form slather that would have occurred in a communication vacuum.

[freshfunk]

Yup. This, to me, is a partial admission of guilt. Why else would they take such harsh, immediate action to throw him under the bus?

[vulf]

It's not throwing him under the bus. It's distancing him from the investigation. That's both to protect him, in case things favor his story, and to protect the company, if it turns out he was in the wrong.

In both cases, they wouldn't want him having any potential influence on the investigation. To do that, his power within the company needs to be suspended until a conclusion is reached. The parties investigating (likely HR and the other founders) must be able to do their job without fear of retaliation from the accused founder, that would taint the decision.

[brazzy]

Because that is what the lynch mob is screaming for and anything else would be labelled as aiding and abetting sexism and discrimination against women by some people?

[vidarh]

If I was the person accused, and I was not guilty, I would request to relinquish all responsibility pending investigation to ensure there was no reasonable way anyone could claim I'd interfered with the investigation when it cleared me.

Of course it can also mean the opposite - my point is merely that suspending someone pending investigation says nothing at all about guilt.