I was honestly surprised by those decisions. This feels like the sort of risk-averse, old-fashioned line that I'd expect an Intel or IBM to take. Someone said something in public and it was controversial; fire everyone involved on all sides!

The legal advice that companies like IBM and intel would have gotten in these situations would almost certainly precluded firing people over it, conservatism runs both ways.

Risk-averse large corporations would have either:

* given the employees a formal reprimand, which would stink up the personnel file but probably be harmless, or

* fired the employee, but with a decent severance package (1.5 * expected job search time for that position) including two-way non-disparagement.

Discussing the termination in a press release would not have happened, as it shouldn't. You should only discuss a termination in high-profile cases of severe ethical wrongdoing by important officers. Otherwise, you shut the fuck up about it.

There was no ethical wrongdoing by mr-hank and he was not an important officer. I don't think he deserved to be fired. In fact, I think it was fucking ridiculous. Adria Richards was in the wrong (I'd call it mild-to-moderate wrongdoing, myself) and in a more high-profile role, so I think the termination was justified, but the public disclosure I am less comfortable with.

  Discussing the termination in a press release would not 
  have happened, as it shouldn't.

Not much point in firing someone to satisfy bloggers, twitter users and HN users if you don't tell them you've done it.

I saw a tweet yesterday that said "We test life in production".

I'm ashamed of companies that don't let their employees make little mistakes. If I made a mistake and the internet decided to DDoS my employer's site, I'd hope my employer thought the internet needed to cool off.

I hope you are referring to the men and not Ms. Richards. Because her "little mistake" resulted in the firing of a decent human being with a wife and 3 kids.

She posted a tweet. Even had she called for his resignation (which she didn't), she didn't have any power to effect it. What about the overreacting HR people who actually fired him over that tweet (knowing about the 3 kids and all)?

She did more than just posting a tweet. She publicly hounded and demonised them when a simple "guys, shut up" would have sufficed. Those people in question have come across as the mature ones since (apologetic and cool-headed) so I'm sure they would have taken her complaints seriously and kept quiet. Failing that, then they would have deserved any backlash. But they weren't even given a warning nor chance to explain the context of their conversation (which wasn't nearly as pornographic as Adria interpreted them).

I know I might now sound heartless, but I struggle to find any sympathy when a bully gets bullied. And while I don't wish anyone to lose their job nor receive death threats, this isn't the first time Adria has bullied individuals nor organizations. Quite frankly, she has a history of being unprofessional and a bully. So while I don't wish the backlash on anyone -not even her- I also can't help thinking "what goes around comes around".

Sorry if that makes me sound heartless. I generally have a lot of time for people (even those who I don't like). But after a childhood of being bullied for being different (read: nerdy), I have zero respect for those who choose to bully my nerdy peers (be them male, female, American, Indian, Chinese, gay or straight - i couldn't care less about that stuff; we're all nerds. But if they're a bully, then my respect for them ends).

How would you like to wake up one day and discover that your picture is all over the internet along with sexist/misogynistic accusations, and for all intents and purposes, you have no idea what you did wrong? Then you go to work and get canned.

This was a pretty scary scene she perpetrated, at least to me. You can really do damage to someone with a mere tweet. Over a dumb, overheard joke? Come on. Judging by the public sentiment, it'll probably be okay for this guy. He's been incredibly gracious publicly. But had he gone home and hung himself, what story would we be talking about?

>She posted a tweet.

A tweet ratting out people for having a personal conversation she eavesdropped on. With their picture and everything.

And for what? For something that was absolutely not her fucking business.

Also telling is what she didn't do:

1) She didn't complain to them. 2) She didn't ask them to stop (if they were talking loud). 3) She didn't ask the conference organizers to take some action. 4) She didn't post a generic tweet/blogpost with her opinion on the incident without naming names.

So, no, she didn't just "post a tweet". She is as much responsible for the guy getting fired as his manager.

And she didn't even apologize (at least for the getting him fired part).

She at least said she was sorry to hear he got let go, and hoped they brought him back. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047

After reading her blog post and several tweets, her words seems carefully crafted to achieve a personal agenda, and I would take anything she says with a whole salt shaker worth of grains of salt.

For all I know this could very well be PR and damage control from her. I have a hard time believing she had no idea this was a possible and probable consequence of her posting of this picture. This is not an uncommon outcome.

Either we hold everyone responsible for what they say publicly, or we don't.

On one hand a person was having a conversation that was over-heard and caused offence. We admonish him and hold him responsible. Is this right and fair? Consensus seems to be yes. Whether it was a private conversation or not, and whether it was intended to cause offence or not is irrelevant. He spoke publicly and whatever the result was was his responsibility.

If this is the standard we want to live by then it is absolutely immaterial whether or not Adria intended for the man to be fired. She spoke publicly and his firing was the direct result of that, hence she is responsible.

>Either we hold everyone responsible for what they say publicly, or we don't. On one hand a person was having a conversation that was over-heard and caused offence. We admonish him and hold him responsible. Is this right and fair? Consensus seems to be yes.

What consensus? I find it absolutely horrifying and terrible that this thing happened for a private conversation (that the conversation took place in a public place means nothing. People talk privately in public places: restaurants, city parks, whatever, offices, all the time).

And judging from the comments I've seen, most people agree.

Only Adria spoke in public: on twitter and her blog, and intending the posts to reach a wide audience.

Can someone explain why having 3 kids and a wife should change any decision here? Is it somehow more acceptable to layoff someone that is single?

Of course -- just like it's more acceptable to lay off a lady! Her husband can just get a job :)

You single guys supporting your parents or supporting people you're not married to (for whatever reason) or sending money back home to help out, your families are invisible.

One could argue that someone with a spouse has a bigger safety net than a single person -- which is actually true and is a contributor to the fact that married men have higher life expectancy than single men -- but it's easier to make assumptions. I'm sure someone will read this and argue that "on average married men need the job more"; I'd like to remind them that this is so because we (society) make it that way through paying men more, expecting men to be primary breadwinners, making childcare so *&^%ing expensive that it makes sense for the lower-paid parent to stay home, spreading elder-care responsibilities unequally.... The system does have its logic: someone's got to do the work, after all!

This.

I'm a developer who is single making a decent salary in the Bay Area, but I also have sent a significant portion of my earnings last year to family who have not faired as well in the economic downturn of the past few years.

Just because someone is single with no kids doesn't mean nobody depends on them.

>Is it somehow more acceptable to layoff someone that is single?

Both are bad, but in the first instance you cause suffering and income loss for the dependent members also (kids).

A guy can even sleep for a while in some friends house (or in his car, or under a bridge) until he gets another shot to paying the rent. A guy with three small kids, not so much.

It's certainly a much bigger deal for someone with 3 kids to lose their job than for a single person... think about the burn rate and possible consequences of running out of money.

Yes, it is. The reason is that a single person doesn't have other people dependent on their income.

She publicly posted without consent a picture and an incriminating comment in an increasingly context of being touchy and wary about gender issues at tech conferences.

Of course this has a significant potential for HR to do PR and distance themselves from their employee in an attempt to save the company image and avoid a potential pro-feminist backlash. Though I agree play haven overreacted, from their despicable business activity it's not that surprising, and past similar experiences points towards this as almost predictable and expected.

But for a dev evangelist, this was highly inconsiderate and irresponsible thing to do, it looks like she didn't care about the consequences of what she did, and got fired over it. Which makes sense too, as explained by sendgrid here: http://blog.sendgrid.com/a-difficult-situation/ she did it all wrong, made her employer look bad, had the opposite effect of what her job position asks for, render herself ineffective at her job in the future, and inadvertently endangered her employer business.