Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Programming

Prominent GitHub Engineer Julie Ann Horvath Quits Citing Harrassment 710

Posted by samzenpus
from the hostile-environment dept.
First time accepted submitter PvtVoid writes in with the story of Julie Ann Horvath alleging a culture of sexism at GitHub. "The exit of engineer Julie Ann Horvath from programming network GitHub has sparked yet another conversation concerning women in technology and startups. Her claims that she faced a sexist internal culture at GitHub came as a surprise to some, given her former defense of the startup and her internal work at the company to promote women in technology."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Prominent GitHub Engineer Julie Ann Horvath Quits Citing Harrassment

Comments Filter:
  • by abies (607076) on Monday March 17, 2014 @05:17AM (#46503727)

    So we know one side of the story. But what about the other side? Maybe she was really bad worker and used 'discrimination' card each time to defend her work? "You are saying that this code is bad not because of the code, but just because I'm a woman". It would be nice if somebody could anonymously 'leak' some of her pull requests plus entire conversation around it - and then we could see how much harrasment was from reviewer and how much unfair pushing from her side.

    Problem is that GitHub is at lost position. However bad she was, they will be always painted bad boys for throwing dirt on her, so they will probably keep silent...

    • by schappim (656944) on Monday March 17, 2014 @05:26AM (#46503769)
      They haven't kept entirely silent. They put a post on the issue up here: https://github.com/blog/1800-u... [github.com]
    • Not true. If they are upfront and transparent and in the right they can easily win back the day. The question is are they in the right. Did a single creepy and jilted co-worker (who aggressively professed his love) remove her code? Is there a data trail to prove this one way or the other? Does the founder's wife act like an employee? If so, I bet other employees have similar stories. When someone acts that unhinged at a company it generates a lot of eye witnesses.

      If I was a C-level guy at github, I'd come
      • by Tanuki64 (989726)

        Did a single creepy and jilted co-worker (who aggressively professed his love) remove her code? Is there a data trail to prove this one way or the other?

        Did you ever try to rewrite the git history so that really no trace of a commit can be found? Sounds interesting. I would like to know how this can be done.

        • It can almost be done by rebasing and replacing a central master. But this deteriotes the history and interaction with _every single cloned repository_ and is generally noticed quite quickly. The validity of all the potentially independent, separate cloned repositories is one of the very useful, decentralized powers of git.

    • by Alarash (746254) on Monday March 17, 2014 @05:43AM (#46503837)
      GitHub's CEO has posted something [github.com] on this:

      This weekend, GitHub employee Julie Horvath spoke publicly about negative experiences she had at GitHub that contributed to her resignation. I am deeply saddened by these developments and want to comment on what GitHub is doing to address them.

      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.

      GitHub has grown incredibly fast over the past two years, bringing a new set of challenges. Nearly a year ago we began a search for an experienced HR Lead and that person came on board in January 2014. We still have work to do. We know that. However, making sure GitHub employees are getting the right feedback and have a safe way to voice their concerns is a primary focus of the company.

      As painful as this experience has been, I am super thankful to Julie for her contributions to GitHub. Her hard work building Passion Projects has made a huge positive impact on both GitHub and the tech community at large, and she's done a lot to help us become a more diverse company. I would like to personally apologize to Julie. It’s certain that there were things we could have done differently. We wish Julie well in her future endeavors.

      Chris Wanstrath
      CEO & Co-Founder

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Truth_Quark (219407)

      Maybe she was really bad worker and used 'discrimination' card each time to defend her work?

      The articles seem to refer to her as Influential developer [readwrite.com].

      I don't think that "really bad worker" is likely.

      And her story isn't incredible. There is a lot of sexism in the industry.

      Problem is that GitHub is at lost position. However bad she was, they will be always painted bad boys for throwing dirt on her, so they will probably keep silent...

      Their response (linked by others) is probably the best they could

      • by abies (607076) on Monday March 17, 2014 @06:40AM (#46504103)

        Their response (linked by others) is probably the best they could do. But also it looks like they are taking her allegations seriously themselves.

        This is my point. Even if she is wrong, they would have to pretend she is right. There is no way of them saying "She overreacted and tried to play 'harrassed woman' card when in reality she was just bad'.

        And regarding 'influential developer'... "influential developer known for helping make GitHub a more attractive place for women programmers to work". Sounds like she was known for being women activist and influencing the view of the company in female circles, rather than influencing the code base/architecture/whatever. She _might_ be a very good developer - I just don't see it claimed anywhere yet.

        Issue is that it is not any longer possible to say "this particular woman is horrible and crap programmer" without being understood as "all women are horrible programmers and I'm chauvinist pig". And while I agree that industry is quite sexist and in many cases attacks are underserved, I refuse to give special handling to a worker doing bad job just because he/she comes from some opressed minority.

        To be honest, I would find it a lot more sexist to give the hell to the guy producing bad code routinely, while being all time calm, smiling and forgiving to woman doing same thing. I'm probably 'chauvinist' enough to put a line at physical violence (like effectively defending myself against physical assault of man versus assult of women), but I'm not going to hold back on opinions just because of gender (or color of skin, disability or sexual orientation).

        Again - not saying she is bad. I'm just stressing that in current PR climate, we will probably never learn, because it will be always better for company to sacrifice a good male programmer than try to fight to expose bad female programmer publicly.

        • by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojo@@@world3...net> on Monday March 17, 2014 @08:33AM (#46504647) Homepage

          And regarding 'influential developer'... "influential developer known for helping make GitHub a more attractive place for women programmers to work". Sounds like she was known for being women activist and influencing the view of the company in female circles, rather than influencing the code base/architecture/whatever. She _might_ be a very good developer - I just don't see it claimed anywhere yet.

          Issue is that it is not any longer possible to say "this particular woman is horrible and crap programmer" without being understood as "all women are horrible programmers and I'm chauvinist pig". And while I agree that industry is quite sexist and in many cases attacks are underserved, I refuse to give special handling to a worker doing bad job just because he/she comes from some opressed minority.

          Sorry, but that is complete bollocks.

          Firstly she says that her code was deleted/reverted without explanation, or with hostile comments left. It doesn't matter how terrible a programmer she might be, that kind of thing is unacceptable. Criticism and reverts are fine, as long as they are constructive and don't amount to bullying.

          You can freely criticise women as long as it is constructive, and the rule is the same for men and gay people and black people and every other minority. You don't have to treat women differently, just fairly as you would any other human being. Giving someone "hell" for writing bad code is rarely appropriate and unlikely to create a good, productive work environment compared to, you know, helping them improve. Arguably men are more likely to put up with it but that doesn't make it right.

          • by abies (607076)

            Firstly she says that her code was deleted/reverted without explanation, or with hostile comments left. It doesn't matter how terrible a programmer she might be, that kind of thing is unacceptable. Criticism and reverts are fine, as long as they are constructive and don't amount to bullying.

            Yes, "she says". If you look at greenshirt post in their magic forum, it looks quite the opposite - he (or she?) claims that Julie has "history of raging against professional criticism" and other bad things. If what greenshirt says is true, then all of us are being just manipulated by drama queen.
            Now, given that entry, ask yourself, why do you believe her side of the story by default?
            1) Because she went to the press first and started smearing her coworkers in public, while they stayed on private forums?
            2) B

    • by Blakey Rat (99501) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:21PM (#46506923)

      Sexist claims aside, the critique that a non-employee is allowed to hang-out in the office and harass employees-- and is still there even after being repeatedly banned from that area of the building-- that is a real HR problem, and that alone would be enough for me to quit a company.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17, 2014 @05:23AM (#46503751)

    Her problem wasn't sexism, it was with the founder's wife (so she says). 75% of the article talks about her problems with the founder's wife.
    So it's just a tale of one woman being bitchy to another.

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 3247 (161794)

      So it's just a tale of one woman being bitchy to another.

      That's a sexist remark, you know?

      • by Tanuki64 (989726)

        That's a sexist remark, you know?

        Much less than her claim.

      • by Draugo (1674528) on Monday March 17, 2014 @06:33AM (#46504073)
        How? If the matter was about two men and AC had said "It's a tale of one man being asshole to another" you would never have raised the sexism flag.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by AmiMoJo (196126) *

          Asshole is gender neutral, bitch is a pejorative used exclusively for women. More over it has a history of being used in a sexist way, much like "nigger" has a history of being used in a racist way.

    • by Gregg M (2076) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:27PM (#46507023) Homepage
      If a woman is treating you differently, because you are a woman, then it is sexism.
  • by ohnocitizen (1951674) on Monday March 17, 2014 @05:23AM (#46503757)
    The article details some serious allegations, and is worth reading in it's entirety. I'm eager to read github's side of the story as well. Some of the claims ought to give users pause about trusting their private data with github. That's hugely problematic. Other claims show an unprofessional and hostile environment, and a company whose HR department (if they have one) is screwing up very badly. I hope they are able to resolve all of this, as I am a very big fan of git, and of github. But at the moment the claims sound plausible and distressing.
  • A bit slow Slashdot? (Score:3, Informative)

    by mystuff (1088543) on Monday March 17, 2014 @05:25AM (#46503763)
    There's already an update to this story here: Update on Julie Horvarth's Departure [github.com]
  • she's a nutcase (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17, 2014 @05:27AM (#46503777)

    There was a party at Github headquarters attended by employees and their friends. There was music and probably alcohol. Also, hula hoops.

    Two women, one of whom I work with and adore, and a friend of hers were hula hooping to some music. I didn’t have a problem with this. What I did have a problem with is the line of men sitting on one bench facing the hoopers and gawking at them. It looked like something out of a strip club. When I brought this up to male coworkers, they didn’t see a problem with it. But for me it felt unsafe and to be honest, really embarrassing. That was the moment I decided to finally leave GitHub.

    Yes, those MEN had the GALL to WATCH two women hula hooping. Which made her feel unsafe. In other words, she's a lunatic and you can safely ignore anything she says.

    • Re:she's a nutcase (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chrisq (894406) on Monday March 17, 2014 @05:41AM (#46503825)

      There was a party at Github headquarters attended by employees and their friends. There was music and probably alcohol. Also, hula hoops.

      Two women, one of whom I work with and adore, and a friend of hers were hula hooping to some music. I didn’t have a problem with this. What I did have a problem with is the line of men sitting on one bench facing the hoopers and gawking at them. It looked like something out of a strip club. When I brought this up to male coworkers, they didn’t see a problem with it. But for me it felt unsafe and to be honest, really embarrassing. That was the moment I decided to finally leave GitHub.

      Yes, those MEN had the GALL to WATCH two women hula hooping. Which made her feel unsafe. In other words, she's a lunatic and you can safely ignore anything she says.

      This is very strange. If you have activities like hula hooping, karaoke, etc. at a party then people do it because they want to be watched. If everyone looked the other way it would be very strange - if that's what they wanted they could have set out a "hula hooping cubicle" where people could do it in private - but its not very party like!

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo (196126) *

        I can see how a situation where female employees were encouraged to gyrate their bodies while the male employees watched and gawked at them could be off-putting. I'm male and I'd find that uncomfortable to watch.

        If it was just a bunch of people of both genders hula hooping that would be fine, but it sounds like there was a very different atmosphere. Where do you draw the line? Most people would probably say that hiring strippers would be unacceptable, but there is a huge grey area of acceptable behaviour at

        • Re:she's a nutcase (Score:4, Insightful)

          by MrL0G1C (867445) on Monday March 17, 2014 @06:28AM (#46504041) Journal

          Too right, what next, dancing and showing their ankles? Parties and alcohol clearly need to be banned.

          Note: you changed "were hula hooping" to "were encouraged to gyrate their bodies".

          Drunk people are often embarrassing, but the uncomfortableness that is embarrassment is something that a reasonable adult puts up with when they see that the other people are having harmless fun.

        • Re:she's a nutcase (Score:4, Insightful)

          by MrL0G1C (867445) on Monday March 17, 2014 @06:40AM (#46504101) Journal

          Anyway, I decided to break with form and RTFA. It's not about sexism, it's about one of the founders and his wife being bonkers and victimising the woman, she probably has a good case of constructive dismissal.

          The hula thing is a red herring and this amounts to victim bashing.

      • Re:she's a nutcase (Score:5, Informative)

        by joe545 (871599) on Monday March 17, 2014 @06:30AM (#46504049)

        Julie Horvath complained and had removed a rug at GitHub which she objected to because of the word "meritocracy". As that would imply that the fact there were so few women in IT and in GitHub in general was because women were not as good as men.

        She also headed-up a female-only lecture project within GitHub.

        Take these facts into consideration when considering her claims of hula-hoop-sexism.

        Source: http://readwrite.com/2014/01/2... [readwrite.com]

        • Re:she's a nutcase (Score:5, Informative)

          by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojo@@@world3...net> on Monday March 17, 2014 @08:48AM (#46504763) Homepage

          As that would imply that the fact there were so few women in IT and in GitHub in general was because women were not as good as men.

          The article you linked to explains it far better than that. GitHub is saying that it isn't a perfect meritocracy yet and needs to do more to encourage women to join. It's just accepting the idea that there are women who want to work in IT but are put off doing so, and that GitHub can do something about it.

          Also, from the Passion Projects (female speaker only lectures) web site:

          Can I attend a Passion Projects talk if I'm not a woman?
          Absolutely. The typical Passion Projects audience is usually split down the middle, half men and half women. And we wouldn't have it any other way. It's just as important for men to see these women as role models as it is for women to.

          In other words they are just trying to help encourage women to give lectures on IT related subjects because they feel that they are otherwise under-represented. It isn't some rabid anti-man feminazi group, and more than scholarships for underprivileged students are run by rich people haters or support groups targeting black communities are racists.

          • Re:she's a nutcase (Score:5, Insightful)

            by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Monday March 17, 2014 @09:23AM (#46505063) Homepage Journal

            In other words they are just trying to help encourage women to give lectures on IT related subjects because they feel that they are otherwise under-represented.

            This misses the point of Jane Elliott's brown-eyes-blue-eyes experiment [youtube.com]. Women don't need separate-but-equal facilities to excel - there is no functional difference between a man and a woman in an IT role. Telling them they need a special venue is telling them they're not good enough for the "men's lecture". It's an insidious form of sexism.

            Do individual women need encouragement? Of course - our culture favors quiet little mermaids, not bold warrior princesses. But do encourage those women who need the encouragement and *don't* tell them they're not good enough for the men's group, but also encourage the quiet nerdy guy who's terrified to speak in front of a group. And if you do encounter this fabled guy who is trying to keep women down in IT - kick 'em in the balls and tell him that women don't have that weakness.

        • Re:she's a nutcase (Score:5, Interesting)

          by IamTheRealMike (537420) <mike@plan99.net> on Monday March 17, 2014 @09:25AM (#46505073) Homepage

          There's more hints of this in her article. It starts out by complaining about "aggressive communication on pull requests" and how little the men respected her opinion.

          In quite some years working in the software business I have occasionally seen men and women genuinely be dicks on code review threads, but I have never once seen an entire group of people be dicks simultaneously. What I have seen, repeatedly, is people who do not have any engineering background bump up against the no nonsense, no bullshit get-it-done-now attitude that is pervasive in the software world. This is especially a problem for people from fuzzy marketing-type backgrounds, which is what this woman has, and especially on code review threads, where reviewers always have a backlog and writing each line-by-line comment as if it were a formal business letter would waste staggering amounts of time.

          My experience has been that men love it when a woman turns up and gets real, respectable work done! What men definitely don't love is when they reply to some request saying "That won't work because of X" and this is interpreted as aggressive by the person whose work was not up to scratch (whether it be men or women). If she couldn't get respect on her code review threads and perceived the communication as aggressive, I bet the real story is that nobody was being aggressive but her work simply contained lots of mistakes, and having them pointed out without any cushioning (as is normal) hurt her ego.

          Reading this story has not made any difference to my desire to work for github. It has reminded me of other times in my previous job where similar issues cropped up, though not normally so publicly. The genuine fault ALWAYS lay with the complainer.

      • Re:she's a nutcase (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17, 2014 @06:31AM (#46504055)

        To paraphrase Robert Heinlein, "if some men like to stare at women hula-hooping, then at least some women must enjoy hula-hooping while being stated at by men, otherwise there is something fundamentally wrong with the human species".

        Being offended by proxy is a totally self-inflicted punishment. If that was the thing that made her leave (and not the behaviour of the co-founder's wife), then indeed she is a nutcase. If that wasn't the trigger, but it's what she's using as an excuse, then she's a manipulative hypocrite, trying to blame "sexism" simply because she hopes it'll get superficial readers on her side, and generate more bad press for GitHub.

    • Re:she's a nutcase (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Craefter (71540) on Monday March 17, 2014 @05:44AM (#46503847)

      I wish I could mod the parent up. Really, she was offended because men were men and woman were woman. If they didn't like to be the center of attention they should do their hula hooping exercises at home, with the blinds down, doors closed..... in the basement.

      That being said, maybe she had some other more valid issues but it seems that this is a case where she blames the world for her own sensitivities.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17, 2014 @05:41AM (#46503827)

    Having read all of that, it seems like maybe 10% sexism and 90% people just being horrible in a completely gender-neutral fashion. Inexcusable either way, but pitching this as a "culture of sexism" seems a bit over-the-top given that most of the negative interactions mentioned in the article are between two women.

  • Psychotic wife (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LordLucless (582312) on Monday March 17, 2014 @06:08AM (#46503945)

    It seems the lion's share of the problem was a founder's psychotic wife, who basically stalked her - which doesn't seem to have anything to do with gender discrimination, and all to do with one person being a nut-job.

    Of the other issues she raised:
    * Another engineer made a pass at her, got rejected, and didn't handle the rejection will.
    * Some girls were hula-hoop dancing, and guys were watching them

    The first issue might have been a problem, but if it was at all proportionate to the page-space dedicated to discussing it, it sounds like a fairly minor issue, and one that should really be able to be solved by HR. The second is just, well, petty. Sounds like she'd made up her mind to hate the place by that stage, and was finding fault with every little thing.

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Monday March 17, 2014 @06:14AM (#46503981) Homepage

    I could be mistaken, but it sounds an awful lot like this is just a bad attempt to blame the big bad men for what the founder's wife did. She sounds like a bitch on wheels with a jetpack strapped to her for good measure. Sure, the one engineer was a problem, but if the wife wasn't involved and out to get her HR would probably have put him in his place if she asked.

    • I could be mistaken, but it sounds an awful lot like this is just a bad attempt to blame the big bad men for what the founder's wife did. She sounds like a bitch on wheels with a jetpack strapped to her for good measure. Sure, the one engineer was a problem, but if the wife wasn't involved and out to get her HR would probably have put him in his place if she asked.

      It doesn't really matter _why_ there was a problem. It looks like the problems were in this order: 1. A "founder" who allowed a non-employee (his wife) to interfere with the company, and who didn't stop that non-employee in their tracks as soon as it was apparent that her interference caused problems. 2. A bitchy woman interfering with the company and causing problems. 3. HR not jumping on the fact that a non-employee was allowed in the company and causing problems. 4. An apparently insane male employee try

  • 'twas the wife (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17, 2014 @06:35AM (#46504079)

    after reading the story it seemed to be almost nothing to do with sexism, and everything to do with the wife not liking the woman. women not liking women, news at 10.

  • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Monday March 17, 2014 @06:55AM (#46504157)
    Since I do not recall seeing articles about her citing harassment, I don't understand why it is such a big deal that she isn't doing so any longer.


    OK, I read the summary and realize the headline is inaccurate. What they meant to write was, " Prominent GitHub Engineer Julie Ann Horvath Quits, Citing Harassment" rather than the headline they did write. All I have to say is, "Commas, learn to use them."
  • by ikhider (2837593) on Monday March 17, 2014 @07:54AM (#46504393)
    This is a tough one. I had the privilege to work for exceptional men and women in male-dominated industries, such as finance. Yes, there is sexism. Women are propositioned, stared at, condescended to, recipients of sexist comments and so on. I have seen some women capitalize on this and turn it to their advantage. I also observe other women who obsess over the power dynamic to the point where they are always checking, verifying and asserting their power. This usually causes resentment. A leader is not effective if s/he keeps asserting 'I am in charge'. Then there are some women who 'just get on with it'. They are there to do business and get the job done effectively. Politics, stares, sexism are like water off a duck's back. They are focussed on their work and getting the job done. Now this is in an arena among the 'captains of industry' types. Imagine an arena of shy and awkward geek boys who obsess on code? No everyone has the strength to get past such environs and 'just get on with the job'. Horvath tweeting about office politics is a bad move. You cannot express much in a tweet. It is a poor way to explain situations. I feel bad for the next woman, who will probably be treated like a vial of nytroglycerine.
  • by DaveV1.0 (203135) on Monday March 17, 2014 @09:35AM (#46505173) Journal
    This was because of the founder's wife and the founder believing what his wife tells him. This isn't about her being a woman, it is about her failure to see what was going on and the politics involved.

    the wife went on to claim that she was responsible for hires at GitHub, and asked Horvath to explain to her what she was working on. The wife also claimed to employ “spies” inside of GitHub, and claimed to be able to, again according to Horvath, read GitHub employees’ private chat-room logs, which only employees are supposed to have access to.

    This sounds like the founder's wife is a loose cannon with a her own little unofficial organization within the company. I have seen this before. This seems like the founder's wife was trying to recruit her into her network of spies.

    Horvath called the situation, aptly, “bananas.”

    Yeah, I can guess who the head banana is, the founder's wife

    In her email to TechCrunch, Horvath says she felt “confused and insulted to think that a woman who was not employed by my company was pulling the strings.” She also said she felt bullied by someone with perceived power and influence over her personal relationship and her career at GitHub.

    As anyone would be.

    Horvath then told her partner, also a GitHub employee, about what was happening. She warned him against being close to the founder and his wife, and asked him not to relay information to them.

    This was good idea.

    According to Horvath, her partner “agreed this was best.” He had talked with the founder’s wife, who agreed to give Horvath space.

    This is where things are going sideways and neither she nor her partner see what is going on. By Horvath's partner talking to the founder's wife, they both made it onto her enemy list and became targets.

    Instead of the issue blowing over, Horvath received a meeting request from HR at GitHub, and was asked to “relay the details of that personal conversation that took place out of the office.” Horvath recalls that she was “uncomfortable with this but complied to the best of my ability.” Her partner was also asked to relay past events.

    This is an indication that HR has been made aware of a situation and is investigating it. This was probably initiated by the founder's wife via the founder because of Horvath's partner.

    Radio silence ensued for a month, according to Horvath, while rumors cropped up that the founder was asking other employees about her, as well as her relationship with her partner. To Horvath, the silence made her think that she was “being bullied into leaving.”

    This is the investigation.

    At this point, Horvath said she began to feel threatened.

    Why exactly? Was it

    She said that having her personal relationship dragged into her work life and put on show for her coworkers didn’t sit well with her.

    That is always a danger when one dates or is married to a coworker. Or was it

    The aforementioned wife began a pattern of passive-aggressive behavior that included sitting close to Horvath to, as she told TechCrunch, “make a point of intimidating” her.

    Or was it something else? The fact that the founder's wife is sittng close to her raises the question of whether the founder's wife has an official capacity in the organization which would partially contradict what Horvath has said thus far.

    This stalemate ended when the founder asked to see her. Horvath said that she “wasn’t going to put myself in a position like that, so I required HR be present if we were to meet.” The meeting did not go well.

    If she thought it would, she was a fool

  • Engineer? (Score:5, Informative)

    by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Monday March 17, 2014 @09:40AM (#46505209)

    How is this person an engineer?

    Her linkedin profile shows a degree in marketing and job titles in design and marketing. Not any engineering background to be seen.

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ju... [linkedin.com]

    Sorry, but no.

  • by mrjimorg (557309) on Monday March 17, 2014 @11:15AM (#46506145) Homepage
    What is it with Women who work in Software Dev? They seem to think that men just sit around making generalizations about them...... oh wait
  • by WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) on Monday March 17, 2014 @02:34PM (#46508723)

    From the book : The No Assholer Rule

    Their (assholes) unpleasant behaviours were catalogued by Sutton as The Dirty Dozen:[6]

            Insults
            Violation of personal space
            Unsolicited touching
            Threats
            Sarcasm
            Flames
            Humiliation
            Shaming
            Interruption
            Backbiting
            Glaring

    looks like she pretty much got a clean sweep of all available asshole behaviors. That deserves some kind of award.

    Sorry but her story has the ring of truth for anyone in the industry more than a five years. Companies are by and large run the way a pirate ship is run and guess what, they're happily populated by would-be buccaneers who have a pirate's lawless and coersive mentality. Arbitrary authority, nepotism, verbal abuse, threats, intimiddation, you know, the above list.

    What's REALLY enlightening here its to filter slashdot comments by their ratings. Filtering for "5" comments yields not the usual collection of insightful or funny stuff you want to read and reflect on because it's obviously drawn from personal experience, but rather abusive and or jocularly dismissive "rebuttals" to her story, myopically focused on some detail (hula hoops !) many of them authored by Anonymous Cowards who, presumably, started with scores of zero and "earned" their way to the top, despite the self imposed filter bubble of most readers.

    I take this to mean one of a number of things. Github aficionados friends and supporters know how to jack the ratings system of Slashdot when the cause suits them. Slashdot is primarily populated by just the kind of knuckleheads the article's author is complaining about or the article itself did not attract the attention of people who accepted the headline as truthfuil and accurate, as if the headline had been: "Politicians are liars" claims small time campaign donor !

    At any rate, as it stands, it's an interesting glimpse into Slashdot "culture" as it presents itself in reaction to this particular article at least. Not my tribe, that's for sure.

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?

Working...