This reads like a prejudicial post, based on a biased interpretation of unclear events. Not what I would expect from an organization whose goal is to fight against prejudice.
The post only deals with ending association, and doesn't make any direct accusation against Github. As a feminist organization devoted to protecting women in the workplace from similar (but not necessarily identical) circumstances, it's only prudent to distance themselves at this point of time regardless of whether Github's actions were truly gender-biased.
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the post, but I understood it to say that what the authors perceived as a "threat of legal action" was a significant factor in their decision. I presume that is a reference to Tom Preston-Werner's comment: "we are prepared to fight any further false claims on this matter to the full extent of the law."[1]
Just to be clear: I'm only stating my interpretation of Ada's comments. I know nothing of what actually transpired at GitHub, thus I have not formed an opinion about it. Nor do I claim to know whether anyone threatened or intended to threaten legal action.
Edit: In case it wasn't clear from the above post, I'm not taking sides with or against Ada, Github, or anyone else. I'm stating what I took to be Ada's reasoning, but not endorsing nor criticizing that reasoning.
Your criticism is equally applicable to any advocacy organization that distances themselves from an alleged situation that they morally oppose.
For example, would you say the same thing about EFF and ACLU speakers canceling their RSA conference talks, due to a "biased interpretation of unclear events" of RSA collaborating with the NSA?
Where do they say that their goal is to fight against prejudice? I scanned their about pages, and my impression is that their primary goal is to support women.
Not really. As a small nonprofit, Ada initiative probably doesn't have the resources to deal with controversy and so it's better to cut ties than to put itself into a charged political situation which would threaten its mission.
The Ada Initiative is a notorious drama-generating concern troll organization. They are not a positive force and this sort of behavior is unsurprising from them.
OK so let's ignore Github's investigation; what other sides to the story are there besides what the accuser told TechCrunch and what she alludes to in tweets? If Github needs further punishment, this has to be instigated by the accuser, just like it would be in a civil/criminal case. Horvath has said that she believes the treatment of her was outright illegal -- and that she has evidence of this. This is not a situation in which an accuser/whistleblower backs down because they don't want to be exposed...Horvath, to her credit, has put her name to these allegations. But alleging is not enough to mandate a punishment. Since Github has also made its defense and is standing by it....are we supposed to side automatically with the accuser?
Github is now in a "have you stopped beating your wife?" predicament. I don't see how the Ada Initiative can pronounce such a judgment unless they are privy to whatever decisive evidence Horvath is currently holding on to.
Really? Ada Initiative is going to throw away a partnership that was beneficial to them and their constituents because of unproven allegations of harassment by a founder and his wife against a single employee?
If Github was truly hostile towards women, why would they support the Ada Initiative in the first place? Sponsoring two conferences "to support women in open technology and culture" is not something a misogynistic organization would do.
I do not envy Github's PR staff. It seems like they are going to have a hell of a time repairing the damage from this incident.
> Sponsoring two conferences "to support women in open technology and culture" is not something a misogynistic organization would do.
Of course they would. No organization is likely to official advertise that they are hostile towards women, and sponsoring this kind of events is an easy PR operation. That says absolutely nothing about the day-to-day situation within the company.
Github as a corporate entity and Github as a cultural place to work are different things. You can still have misogyny in your organization while the company promotes the opposite.
> If Github was truly hostile towards women, why would they support the Ada Initiative in the first place?
It's never that simple. Almost everyone says they want more women in tech. But few take steps to actively promote that -- by increasing hiring of women, by fighting misogynistic elements of company culture, etc. Misogynistic company cultures are far more likely to arise through unconscious propagation of stereotypes and behaviors than from misogynistic leadership.
The Ada Initiative isn't trying to call Github misogynistic. It's just saying they haven't done a very good job of living up to their principles.
Who said they were throwing it away? Distancing one's self is not burning a bridge. I thought the press release was very mature and thought out. The Ada Initiative's goal isn't to help github grow up, it is to help women and girls in tech.
And yes, one always has to sacrifice something on principle, otherwise they wouldn't be principles, just more profitable choices.
This seems like a weird move to take. From what I can tell, there's no clear evidence of gender-related wrongdoing* . There is one person's strong allegations of it, and a handful of accounts saying otherwise (of mixed trustworthiness).
So, whether you believe there was gender-related wrongdoing depends entirely on whether you believe Julie Ann Horvath or an independent investigator, or neither.
As such, it seems like the only reasonable conclusion for an outside party considering an action related to github (going to work there, partnering with them, or even just using their product) is "we don't know."
The only way we could know, with any actionable level of certainty, would be if this went to court. Until that happens, though, any punitive action we take (like boycotting github, or ending partnerships with them), is based on a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach founded in a single person's accusation. That reeks of witchunting, and I'm more than a little concerned by it.
* Everything github has said seems to indicate only non-gender-related wrongdoing, specifically the founder's wife pressuring (unintentionally, according to her) employees into helping with her charity.
To anyone criticising their decision for whatever reason; the key lies in the phrase
The sum of these events make it impossible for Ada Initiative (...)
To me, this reads that it's not about who has done what etc. But rather that one doesn't want to keep working with a company where an affair like this goes down the way it has. As some agreed before here on HN; github, or rather the participants in this affair acted, or seemed to act, like a bunch of immature teenagers. It's understandable that this irks business partners, as its simply not professional - usually what business is about (Or more often, pretends to be. But that's not too relevant here). Especially when your mission includes social/society topics, like the Ada Initiative.
I don't know, maybe it's the Ada Init. acting immature here.
Or maybe the whole "echo chamber" around github et al needs to grow up (seriously, usually such FUD, dirty laundry, who-kisses-whom etc. is written about in very low grade magazines, one would assume such are not read by techies/hackers). It would explain why many articles related to that are consistently upvoted (thankfully, they seem to vanish rather fast as well).
Or maybe there's a real, general problem of our/this society lying below all that; but I doubt that. (Not that there are no problems at all).
But serious discussion about this should go to a social science HN, in my opinion. I would prefer if we all could nudge the scope of HN back to tech stuff (or fields where YC backs startups, since it seems to expand since recently).
Cause I'm getting a little fed up with all this excitement and talk about failed social interaction between some other humans, which in contrast to the billions of other similar mishaps on this planet, just happen(ed) to be affiliated with a company whose products are often used around here.
Just curious, who makes the decision? The people who run the Initiative? What about the members? Are the majority of members and participants (people who benefit from the initiative's works) fully in supporting this break up?
Have they asked people to vote or not? Why do their opinions not matter?
I don't know what kind of work they do with Github other than hosting repository and sponsorship -- which means it doesn't stop people fro using Github or mentioning github.com/<username>/<reponame> on slides.
So what's the problem with the report?
Are they not happy with the whole "third-party independent investigation"? (Someone said in other HN threads that the investigators didn't reach out to Horvath until the end of the investigation). That shouldn't be a good reason to quit the partnership.
Are they angry at the "[we, github] found mistakes" (which probably means very poor management)? That's still not a good enough reason to quit. Every comapny has some kind of problems too.
Or are they fully convinced that Github is lying and Horvath is telling the truth? Which one? This is probably the worst reason to quit partnership.
This was ill-conceived from the get-go. GitHub is proprietary and encouraging people (women or men) to get private repos there is not a service to Open Source.
Seems like a strange decision unless they know more than said in this blog post to end a relationship that could benefit both sides.
That said I'm fiercely opposed to organisation's like the Ada Initiative since they are inherently discriminatory in nature, I'm in favor of Egalitarianism.
If you don't think they are discriminatory imagine -
----
"The Turing Initiative - Supporting men in open technology and culture"
"The Turing Initiative welcomes men of all kinds, and specifically welcomes trans men and genderqueer men. We strive to be an intersectional social justice organization."
---
We shouldn't be demanding equality for one group or another we should be demanding it for everyone.
Ada Initiative - Support all people in open technology, That I would donate to.
And if computer science were a field in which men have historically been underrepresented, with company after company having culture issues about "femprogramming culture", your Turing Initiative might have a reason to actually exist.
Those are all cogent points! If any hetero identifying male wants to dispute them, I challenge him to spending a weekend in The Castro neighborhood of SF and write a completely truthful essay chronicling his comfort level. He's either going to end up supporting the above points about sexualized environments by documenting reduced emotional comfort levels, or he's going to demonstrate that he's a paragon of not-giving-a-# -- which while admirable, being one should not be a requirement for working someplace in an office. Keep in mind that going to The Castro is a leisure activity and such a situation is a whole lot more voluntary than going to work.
It turns out that many of our ancestors were smart and wise people and not all of them were merely grunting superstitious simpletons. A sublimated sexuality hidden behind a facade of polite society can be a powerful tool for facilitating consensuality. The point being that such social norms can allow one to opt out of activities they don't care to be a part of. Granted, there are also ways in which sublimated sexuality can be used to reduce consensuality though the use of social pressure. Again, the key is consensuality, and whether or not power relationships support or undermine individual freedom, not sexuality in its entirety.
It strikes me as odd that sexuality should be wholly removed from such huge swathes of human experience. Not only is this notion odd, but as history demonstrates, it's starkly unrealistic. The kind of polite society that promotes "live and let live" as a communal good arose for good reasons. As always, things that naturally evolve have flaws, but the project of social reform, most feminism included, rests on the underlying assumption that such things can be fixed.
> If any hetero identifying male wants to dispute them, I challenge him to spending a weekend in The Castro neighborhood of SF and write a completely truthful essay chronicling his comfort level.
I used to live right near the Castro and spent lots of time there. I also lived in West Hollywood for years. I always felt completely comfortable in both places, and not because I am a paragon of not giving a shit. Sorry, but being looked at or hit on by a man is not, in itself, a traumatic experience. I know your post is probably motivated by empathy, but the above comment comes off as really weird and homophobic.
> He's either going to end up supporting the above points about sexualized environments by documenting reduced emotional comfort levels, or he's going to demonstrate that he's a paragon of not-giving-a-# -- which while admirable, being one should not be a requirement for working someplace in an office.
No matter what your experiences are, it will prove my point ← seriously?
It's safe to say that GitHub won't depend on the partnership with Ada... private repositories were offered for free to select individuals/women - that doesn't sound like a big deal to me, at least. If anyone is looking for private repos for free, they could get them @ https://bitbucket.org/.
I might be biased to the meaning of significant because I had a course of statistics once, but isn't the person in question stepping down a significant change? It is a significant change in his life. These seem to be pretty vague demands. What do they think would be a significant change?
> 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.
Actually, it was a clear threat of legal action against anyone who made false accusations.
Often, "arbitration" is used as window-dressing for a severe power imbalance to continue. Arbitration only deserves to be called such if it's entered into voluntarily by two parties with good intentions.
So, women who signed up to those repositories had no say in this decision? I think they should've been asked first, what THEY want. Some projects might have contributors on GitHub. Ada Initiative promises to accommodate those people, but why weren't they talked to and accommodated before making this decision? It's so much for Ada Initiative "helping" women treating them merely like pawns.
This is a tough one. We have Horvath's allegations, and we have confirmation from Github that at least some of them were true. Clearly, bad things happened and the result is the resignation of a former CEO and founder, so it's not as though there have been no consequences.
I would be interested to know which allegations the Ada Initiative think have not been addressed, and how they would like them to be addressed.
Do we really expect that any findings of wrongdoing would be publicized? If their audit publicized that sexual or gender based harassment had occurred, that opens them up to a pretty serious lawsuit. This outcome is pretty much the only one you can expect, regardless of the real events.
Also, the ADA initiative doesn't really have a choice here either. Either draw a hard line, or look like they aren't able set the same standards that they ask from others.
Finally, if the investigation at Github turned up real mistakes of judgement, why weren't they itemized? We are left guessing what the investigator found. Github has that report, yet they are being evasive about it's contents. Air that stuff out. Stating that the allegations are unfounded at the same time as revealing that undisclosed mistakes in judgement occurred, combined with pushing out a founder: doesn't smell right.
Your hypothesis is that two "reasonable women" will enter IT as a result of Julie Ann Horvath and another former employee feeling ostracized at GitHub?
Wasn't their an anonymous posting from within Github that said the Horvath was spreading lies about Theresa sleeping with other men, and that her baby wasn't Tom's?
That seems like at least a motivation for the actions, and at the far end of the spectrum, a reason for it.
[+] [-] diego|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maldeh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jarrett|12 years ago|reply
Just to be clear: I'm only stating my interpretation of Ada's comments. I know nothing of what actually transpired at GitHub, thus I have not formed an opinion about it. Nor do I claim to know whether anyone threatened or intended to threaten legal action.
[1] http://tom.preston-werner.com/2014/04/21/farewell-github-hel...
Edit: In case it wasn't clear from the above post, I'm not taking sides with or against Ada, Github, or anyone else. I'm stating what I took to be Ada's reasoning, but not endorsing nor criticizing that reasoning.
[+] [-] dbloom|12 years ago|reply
For example, would you say the same thing about EFF and ACLU speakers canceling their RSA conference talks, due to a "biased interpretation of unclear events" of RSA collaborating with the NSA?
[+] [-] bicknergseng|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baddox|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsl|12 years ago|reply
It is. Do some background research. The Ada Initiative is a radical feminist organization and does more harm than good.
[+] [-] slowmotiony|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaronem|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sneak|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|12 years ago|reply
OK so let's ignore Github's investigation; what other sides to the story are there besides what the accuser told TechCrunch and what she alludes to in tweets? If Github needs further punishment, this has to be instigated by the accuser, just like it would be in a civil/criminal case. Horvath has said that she believes the treatment of her was outright illegal -- and that she has evidence of this. This is not a situation in which an accuser/whistleblower backs down because they don't want to be exposed...Horvath, to her credit, has put her name to these allegations. But alleging is not enough to mandate a punishment. Since Github has also made its defense and is standing by it....are we supposed to side automatically with the accuser?
Github is now in a "have you stopped beating your wife?" predicament. I don't see how the Ada Initiative can pronounce such a judgment unless they are privy to whatever decisive evidence Horvath is currently holding on to.
[+] [-] zhemao|12 years ago|reply
If Github was truly hostile towards women, why would they support the Ada Initiative in the first place? Sponsoring two conferences "to support women in open technology and culture" is not something a misogynistic organization would do.
I do not envy Github's PR staff. It seems like they are going to have a hell of a time repairing the damage from this incident.
[+] [-] Wilya|12 years ago|reply
Of course they would. No organization is likely to official advertise that they are hostile towards women, and sponsoring this kind of events is an easy PR operation. That says absolutely nothing about the day-to-day situation within the company.
[+] [-] comrh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jpwright|12 years ago|reply
It's never that simple. Almost everyone says they want more women in tech. But few take steps to actively promote that -- by increasing hiring of women, by fighting misogynistic elements of company culture, etc. Misogynistic company cultures are far more likely to arise through unconscious propagation of stereotypes and behaviors than from misogynistic leadership.
The Ada Initiative isn't trying to call Github misogynistic. It's just saying they haven't done a very good job of living up to their principles.
[+] [-] sitkack|12 years ago|reply
And yes, one always has to sacrifice something on principle, otherwise they wouldn't be principles, just more profitable choices.
[+] [-] lawnchair_larry|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] some_person|12 years ago|reply
So, whether you believe there was gender-related wrongdoing depends entirely on whether you believe Julie Ann Horvath or an independent investigator, or neither.
As such, it seems like the only reasonable conclusion for an outside party considering an action related to github (going to work there, partnering with them, or even just using their product) is "we don't know."
The only way we could know, with any actionable level of certainty, would be if this went to court. Until that happens, though, any punitive action we take (like boycotting github, or ending partnerships with them), is based on a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach founded in a single person's accusation. That reeks of witchunting, and I'm more than a little concerned by it.
* Everything github has said seems to indicate only non-gender-related wrongdoing, specifically the founder's wife pressuring (unintentionally, according to her) employees into helping with her charity.
[+] [-] roeme|12 years ago|reply
The sum of these events make it impossible for Ada Initiative (...)
To me, this reads that it's not about who has done what etc. But rather that one doesn't want to keep working with a company where an affair like this goes down the way it has. As some agreed before here on HN; github, or rather the participants in this affair acted, or seemed to act, like a bunch of immature teenagers. It's understandable that this irks business partners, as its simply not professional - usually what business is about (Or more often, pretends to be. But that's not too relevant here). Especially when your mission includes social/society topics, like the Ada Initiative.
I don't know, maybe it's the Ada Init. acting immature here.
Or maybe the whole "echo chamber" around github et al needs to grow up (seriously, usually such FUD, dirty laundry, who-kisses-whom etc. is written about in very low grade magazines, one would assume such are not read by techies/hackers). It would explain why many articles related to that are consistently upvoted (thankfully, they seem to vanish rather fast as well).
Or maybe there's a real, general problem of our/this society lying below all that; but I doubt that. (Not that there are no problems at all).
But serious discussion about this should go to a social science HN, in my opinion. I would prefer if we all could nudge the scope of HN back to tech stuff (or fields where YC backs startups, since it seems to expand since recently).
Cause I'm getting a little fed up with all this excitement and talk about failed social interaction between some other humans, which in contrast to the billions of other similar mishaps on this planet, just happen(ed) to be affiliated with a company whose products are often used around here.
[+] [-] yeukhon|12 years ago|reply
Have they asked people to vote or not? Why do their opinions not matter?
I don't know what kind of work they do with Github other than hosting repository and sponsorship -- which means it doesn't stop people fro using Github or mentioning github.com/<username>/<reponame> on slides.
So what's the problem with the report?
Are they not happy with the whole "third-party independent investigation"? (Someone said in other HN threads that the investigators didn't reach out to Horvath until the end of the investigation). That shouldn't be a good reason to quit the partnership.
Are they angry at the "[we, github] found mistakes" (which probably means very poor management)? That's still not a good enough reason to quit. Every comapny has some kind of problems too.
Or are they fully convinced that Github is lying and Horvath is telling the truth? Which one? This is probably the worst reason to quit partnership.
So, which one?
[+] [-] quadrangle|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noir_lord|12 years ago|reply
That said I'm fiercely opposed to organisation's like the Ada Initiative since they are inherently discriminatory in nature, I'm in favor of Egalitarianism.
If you don't think they are discriminatory imagine -
---- "The Turing Initiative - Supporting men in open technology and culture"
"The Turing Initiative welcomes men of all kinds, and specifically welcomes trans men and genderqueer men. We strive to be an intersectional social justice organization." ---
We shouldn't be demanding equality for one group or another we should be demanding it for everyone.
Ada Initiative - Support all people in open technology, That I would donate to.
[+] [-] inklesspen|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stcredzero|12 years ago|reply
Sexualized environments harmful? Color me curious! So I read the referenced page:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment
Those are all cogent points! If any hetero identifying male wants to dispute them, I challenge him to spending a weekend in The Castro neighborhood of SF and write a completely truthful essay chronicling his comfort level. He's either going to end up supporting the above points about sexualized environments by documenting reduced emotional comfort levels, or he's going to demonstrate that he's a paragon of not-giving-a-# -- which while admirable, being one should not be a requirement for working someplace in an office. Keep in mind that going to The Castro is a leisure activity and such a situation is a whole lot more voluntary than going to work.
It turns out that many of our ancestors were smart and wise people and not all of them were merely grunting superstitious simpletons. A sublimated sexuality hidden behind a facade of polite society can be a powerful tool for facilitating consensuality. The point being that such social norms can allow one to opt out of activities they don't care to be a part of. Granted, there are also ways in which sublimated sexuality can be used to reduce consensuality though the use of social pressure. Again, the key is consensuality, and whether or not power relationships support or undermine individual freedom, not sexuality in its entirety.
It strikes me as odd that sexuality should be wholly removed from such huge swathes of human experience. Not only is this notion odd, but as history demonstrates, it's starkly unrealistic. The kind of polite society that promotes "live and let live" as a communal good arose for good reasons. As always, things that naturally evolve have flaws, but the project of social reform, most feminism included, rests on the underlying assumption that such things can be fixed.
[+] [-] jonahx|12 years ago|reply
I used to live right near the Castro and spent lots of time there. I also lived in West Hollywood for years. I always felt completely comfortable in both places, and not because I am a paragon of not giving a shit. Sorry, but being looked at or hit on by a man is not, in itself, a traumatic experience. I know your post is probably motivated by empathy, but the above comment comes off as really weird and homophobic.
[+] [-] Dewie|12 years ago|reply
No matter what your experiences are, it will prove my point ← seriously?
[+] [-] mrsaint|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] railsdude|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GUNHED_158|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] panzi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CoachRufus87|12 years ago|reply
Taking away their free private repos seems pretty harmful.
[+] [-] lkd|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] baddox|12 years ago|reply
Actually, it was a clear threat of legal action against anyone who made false accusations.
[+] [-] notwedtm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vampirechicken|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stcredzero|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whiterabbit2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rjknight|12 years ago|reply
I would be interested to know which allegations the Ada Initiative think have not been addressed, and how they would like them to be addressed.
[+] [-] Rantenki|12 years ago|reply
Also, the ADA initiative doesn't really have a choice here either. Either draw a hard line, or look like they aren't able set the same standards that they ask from others.
Finally, if the investigation at Github turned up real mistakes of judgement, why weren't they itemized? We are left guessing what the investigator found. Github has that report, yet they are being evasive about it's contents. Air that stuff out. Stating that the allegations are unfounded at the same time as revealing that undisclosed mistakes in judgement occurred, combined with pushing out a founder: doesn't smell right.
[+] [-] lkd|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] facepalm|12 years ago|reply
Who knows, actual female developers might be put off by radical feminism using them for their agenda.
[+] [-] pyronite|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] discodave|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] notwedtm|12 years ago|reply
That seems like at least a motivation for the actions, and at the far end of the spectrum, a reason for it.
[+] [-] arjie|12 years ago|reply
http://pastebin.com/tpMF2G0A