> 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.
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.