[erikpukinskis]

My approach is different actually. While I think the criminal justice "beyond a shadow of a doubt" standard is sensible for many criminal trials, because I have no legal power over github, I treat these things more like civil suits. Which means I just look for "the preponderance of the evidence". In this case there are varying amounts of evidence for all three of the following:

1) workplace harassment against women is quite common

2) such harassment is frequently ignored

3) there was some harassment in this case

And there's no evidence that I've seen that suggests there was no harassment or that it was handled properly by management. Therefore for the time being my assumption is that the harassment and mismanagement both happened.

That said, although I have seen mountains of evidence for 1) and 2), because the amount of evidence for the specific situation is small, that means a small amount of counter-evidence about the specific situation could easily shift the balance of probabilities.

That said, I have seen quite a bit of evidence that such accusations are only rarely false, so while I would change my balance of properties readily, I don't expect that to happen.