[rds2000]

1. What part of the article above would be considered hearsay? Aside from the screenshots, it feels the least bit gossipy.

2. Right to confront accusers? This seems extremely one-sided. No one she blames gets to defend themselves, where are the witnesses on either side?

[aiiane]

Er, it's not like she's anonymously accusing them. They can confront her any time they want.

[zobzu]

pretty sure they're consulting their lawyers, HR, and everyone involved before they're going to make any move.

which.. sounds smart.

[rds2000]

Carried forward, in a court-like environment, or throwing salvos over PR mediums?

I take it as a bad smell someone goes the PR route over a lawyer (perhaps a confidential legal threat?) to discuss things privately and settle thing amicably.

[pyre]

Depends on what the aim is. There are some considerations here:

1. People tend to view going for the lawyers as going for the 'big guns,' and can be reluctant to do so.

2. Companies can become less cooperative very quickly once it's a matter being decided by lawyers and/or in a court.

3. She may not have consulted a lawyer because she doesn't think that anything which transpired qualifies as 'illegal,' rather than unprofessional, rude, mean, etc.

From the story presented to us, it sounds like she wants to leverage bad PR to get Github's HR / board to hold the people she views as having wronged her accountable.

[greenrd]

After reading the article I assumed that she didn't go to a lawyer because she believed there was nothing there that would merit a lawsuit. The fact that she didn't mention what her initial grievance was, leads me to believe it wasn't such a big deal as to rise to the level of a lawsuit.

Or possibly she just believes that going public like this is the best way to bring about change.

[ssorallen]

> We are awaiting comment from GitHub regarding these allegations, and GitHub says it is looking into it.

> We are waiting for comment from GitHub about these allegations.

> GitHub says it is investigating the matter: “We’re looking into this.”

This post might be entirely true, but for now it is an expanded personal blog post posing as news. I will hold judgement on both parties until there is evidence, but I doubt most readers skimming headlines will.

It is unfortunate this was posted before TechCrunch or any other "news" site got corroboration from other parties or evidence of any of it. The post offers no evidence outside what was created by Ms. Horvath herself.

[pyre]

I'll admit that it's a bit gossipy, but in other circumstances, you likely wouldn't be calling for 'witnesses on either side.'