Why are you making excuses for these people? What purpose does it serve?
I'm especially shocked to see you trivialise the actions of the jilted engineer. Reverting someone else's work without explanation is a blatantly hostile and disrespectful act that should be treated seriously in isolation, and is made more serious still in the context of the inappropriate sexual stuff.
> Why are you making excuses for these people? What purpose does it serve?
Because I think people should question whether they're overreacting to the situation.
> I'm especially shocked to see you trivialise the actions of the jilted engineer
I edited to clarify this. Careful reading shows that:
(1) It is possible that there were legitimate technical reasons for the reverted commits.
(2) It is possible that Github did not respond to this part of the situation because they were unaware of the reversion or the context behind it.
(3) It is possible that Github took some action against the engineer in question.
(4) I'm not entirely sure that confessing romantic feelings for a co-worker is, by itself, inappropriate. Provided everyone stays cool and professional if the feelings aren't mutual (or just avoid each other if the org chart makes that possible).
(5) Reverting commits because someone rejected your romantic advances is unacceptable and unprofessional, and I edited my post to say so.
I think it is difficult to say that Github is at fault from the information given, and I fear that's the conclusion that many were jumping to. If you're such a person, you should think carefully about what the article actually said, what you are assuming, and whether those assumptions might be false.
> I think it is difficult to say that Github is at fault from the information given, and I fear that's the conclusion that many were jumping to.
Don't worry. Read the whole thread on this discussion. The only people who are jumping to conclusions are those assuming there is something wrong with Horvath's story.
> GitHub are perfectly capable of defending themselves. They are the group in power here. Second-guessing the motives and truth of this woman's story does nothing but undermine her, and undermine the confidence of others who may have similar stories (at GitHub or elsewhere).
> Second-guessing the motives and truth of this woman's story does nothing but undermine her, and undermine the confidence of others who may have similar stories (at GitHub or elsewhere).
What the heck are you talking about? The story is hearsay at this point and armchair warriors are jumping to conclusions behind the anonymity of the internet.
Second-guessing the motives and truth? Do you work at Github? Is this person your co-worker?
The story is, by definition, not hearsay, since the woman is alleging that the events took place with her present.
Key point: she alleges that everyone was not calm and cool regarding hitting on a coworker. You miss the part where he didn't leave when asked, and never justified reverting her commits (to the point where she had to revert the revert).
Two things, being in power makes you more vulnerable to these things and secondly, you should second guess everyone, people look after their own interests and no one is completely reliable.
You're being ridiculous. Emergency reverts are normal and expected when production systems are down.
I'm willing to stipulate this person's specific actions were probably hostile and unwarranted, but some sort of blanket "no revert without discussion" rule is just a way to cost your employer customers.
Context is important, and we don't have enough of it to be certain of what happened.
There may be legit reasons, but we have no indication that the reasons were legit. We do have someone involved who says they weren't. We should assume she is being truthful and accurate unless there is a reason to doubt her.
If github says the reverts were legit, then that's different, but you should go with the best information we have, instead of trying to find an excuse not to believe her based on no evidence.
> We should assume she is being truthful and accurate unless there is a reason to doubt her.
I come from a different school of thought. Firstly she only mentions a few people but the entire company and an entire industry are being brought into question.
Generally I have found what has been echoed by TechCrunch to be lacking in details and specifically from one persons point of view which shows a very self indulged narrative.
My response is not to suggest it did not happen, but given what has been said, how it has been said, and whom it is being said about, I suggest that before we tar people in such a way that more evidence should be presented.
I'm quite certain you've either mistaken me for someone else, or are looking for an excuse to argue with me based on a willful misinterpretation of my comment.
I'm even more certain that going through life believing everything you hear is not going to get you the results you want.
Isn't the Secret post screenshotted in the article itself one reason to doubt her character? Of course it may be all lies... it's just an anonymous comment and anyone could have written it, including the guy whose advances she spurned.
This. In one week I had to rip out two different things in the middle of the night. One was a simple revert, one was dropping an entire system which had taken months of work and reverting back to the old system.
In both cases, I wrote a detailed technical explanation of why I had taken the action, and an apology for having to do it so suddenly, and I sent to to the entire group (a requirement anyway - if you make an on-the-fly ops change, you need to write up a full incident report so everyone knows what went wrong)
Reverting always needs to come with a "this is what was wrong".
We are only hearing one side of the story, but it may be interesting to note the comment: " I even had to have a few of his commits reverted. ", it seems that there may have been some legitimacy to the other non-few if we are going to take a black and white view of things.
While the details on this matter seem very clear, the statement " I would work on something, go to bed, and wake up to find my work gone without any explanation." does not imply no discussion it implies that when she got up she had no idea of what was going on. It may be a case of a lazy co-worker, and/or a case that the co-worker discussed the issues with her at a latter stage.
She is very succinct in her description of the actions of others, and then describes her response in an emotional unclear way. In her own way in this example, she has used passive aggressiveness to mask the actual event.
TLDR; We do not know if there was no discussion, and we are only hearing one side.
I'm especially shocked to see you trivialise the actions of the jilted engineer. Reverting someone else's work without explanation is a blatantly hostile and disrespectful act that should be treated seriously in isolation, and is made more serious still in the context of the inappropriate sexual stuff.