|
|
|
|
|
|
by mtrimpe
4432 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.