We don't know that now. We just know that no one was willing to admit to a company hired investigator (as impartial as defunkt claims they are, would you feel comfortable voicing allegations of sexism about your superiors to someone who you KNEW was going to report to your superior? Now imagine if you were a woman, where talking about sexism is often enough to get you labeled as a troublemaker, or just a nasty word).
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.
Adding to that, it is also possible that Github board of directors were willing to make a scapegoat of a founder (guilty or not), rather than risk the whole company's reputation by acknowledging inequalities in the workplace.
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.
And indeed the content of the interviews made it to the bosses via the report:
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.
I think it's fair to assume that in most work places people hold back criticism from their employers, no? Why this need to assume anything anyone says is as equally likely to be true as anything anyone else says?
Women at GitHub reported feeling supported, mentored, and protected at work, and felt they are treated equitably and are provided opportunities.
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.
Another possibility you should consider is that people don't like to rain on other people's parades. 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?
> Another possibility you should consider is that people don't like to rain on other people's parades
The media attention this incidence garnered says otherwise. From thousands of tweets, to HN comments, to blogposts, etc. We sunk our beaks into the carcass.
> 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.
It depends on the nature of authority and the safety of work environment. GitHub-according-to-the-media promotes exactly that. Not forgetting GitHub's engineers are probably good enough to land another job almost immediately after they quit GitHub.
Because both an employee and employer can make whatever claims their want and claims from both sides should be viewed as suspect absent evidence and witnesses. This becomes a gender issue when other people support that claim. Until evidence or a credible witness corroborate the claims, it's a disagreement between an employee and employer. We have zero evidence to support anything more than that at this point. To claim otherwise respects neither science nor due process.
My point is that the allegations are gender-based in nature, which makes this a gender issue by definition.
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.
Is it also a part of that "classic" scenario for one of the founders of the company to be forced out based on the results of an investigation that found "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."? Does that always happen when some random disgruntled employee talks shit about a company on Twitter?
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.