[b0z0]

I guess I'm digging myself in a hole here since apparently my opinion isn't very popular. But I just wanted to explain why I said what I did, based on a moment of reflection:

- Founder allegations: sounds like they already came to the conclusion that TPW wasn't acting appropriately, so I'm not sure what the fact that it happened before adds to that.

- Engineer allegations: this is about people other than TPW.

- Github's working environment: Maybe Severini could have added some dishing on TPW, in particular (but not necessarily the company). But given the non-disparagement agreement and the fact that her feelings are apparently general knowledge, was another interview with her really necessary?

As @waterlesscloud says above, I'm wondering, "Is anyone disputing the activities of the Preston-Werners at this point?" The fact that it's happened before is relevant if you want to dish more on TPW's character or the fact that GH made a mistake, both of which have already been done. Adding more at this point is almost sensationalist.

[mtrimpe]

Up until know, when evaluating GitHub's reaction, we assumed the other co-founders wouldn't have known about this.

If they had a similar thing happen a while ago where someone was let go, in a company that prides itself for employee retention no less, that changes our evaluation.

It just means they condoned Tom's behaviour knowing first hand that it was problematic and had been for a long time; essentially lending credence to Julie-Ann's statement that the culture was toxic.

Based on the response I'd say that there's a good chance the toxicity might have largely stemmed from the management team not wanting to oust a co-founder, so there's a good chance it's ""fixed"" now, but that still doesn't excuse their lack of inaction until now.

[bwy]

> Up until know, when evaluating GitHub's reaction, we assumed the other co-founders wouldn't have known about this.

I'm not sure how they wouldn't have known about the settlement with Severind, if that's what you're talking about.

For the rest of your post, yes, I agree, it means they made a big mistake (even bigger? Probably.) And that mistake probably did contribute to a bad* environment, as tons of people have already mentioned with the PWs and pressure about the wife's work. My point is that these shortcomings have already been documented and admitted. What did the fact that it's happened before add to that?

* Note: Be very careful, though, about accepting adjectives such as "toxic" at face value: she can say whatever she wants without damaging herself in this case, but people have a funny tendency to use strong words to describe things that, objectively, just aren't that big of a deal. For example, my school's newspaper had a reporter complaining about being "violently rejected" because someone didn't respond to a text. No joke.

Call my well poisoned by that experience, but based on her Twitter posts (some guy deleting her code for not f*ing her, for which there is no proof), I don't know how reliable her description is.

[samstave]

>- Founder allegations: sounds like they already came to the conclusion that TPW wasn't acting appropriately, so I'm not sure what the fact that it happened before adds to that.

This implies that this is an endemic behavior from tis person, and it would seem that she is an organizational cancer.

This would appear to me to be a super red-flag on her involvement in any company; ESPECIALLY given the fact that she appears to be branding herself as some sort of women-in-business-thought-leader....

From my outside, very ignorant view-point, she seems to be working exactly against what she claims to be leading in; she is an exceedingly poor example of how female business leaders should operate.

My personal opinion would be that she felt like she had some status/power and it just turned her into a horrible person where she thought that said power/status meant she could actt however she liked.