Reading GitHub's statements on the investigation, it seems the independent investigator they hired found no evidence that sexism at GitHub. The investigator did find issues with TPW's general professional behavior which is why he resigned.

> Sexism is a highly incendiary issue in this community. How did a case which apparently was not about sexism come to be so closely related to it?

I think you answered your own question there.

> Is the report from Github incorrect or was sexism used to market this to the watching population?

That is what we call a false dichotomy. I do not see how you have narrowed it down to those two choices, and it honestly seems like a veiled accusation.

The reason I asked it though is that if this is being used as a tool then it takes away from the real problem. I have no doubt that there are a lot of women in technology have experienced and do experience sexism and that is a very bad and sad thing

However, the amplitude and focus of how this story played out (in places as far as the British Sunday papers) and focussed on institutional sexism seems to be very different to the facts portrayed in the report. Such harassment and psychological pressure is of course terrifically difficult to document and I do know that there could be several different backgrounds that fit the report but there is still quite a distance between the two.

So the reason that I asked the question is that if this is the case then it's a massive disservice to those who are feeling the effects of genuine sexism and weakens their voice. I suspect that that was the net effect of what happened in the Sendgrid case and I think that is a very sad thing.

Thank you for that. It's somehow very much appreciated.

As for the sexism accusations; Many, many women feel they're being discriminated at work ( and they're usually right.) Only a tiny, tiny percentage chooses to speak out about it though because of the very high costs associated with it.

My guess is that in this case Julie-Ann just happened to be one of those silent women and when things escalated with Tom it was just a case of 'now that my reputation will be ruined anyhow I might just as well get everything off my chest.'

If you read her original post she also doesn't make that much of a big deal about the sexism stuff; it's just 'one amongst many' of the abuses she listed.

Also keep in mind that, assuming she's acting in good faith, it's very likely that the reverted commit was indeed very small and dubious but was accompanied, verbally or non-verbally, by something that very clearly and unambiguously communicated the real reason; but of course without leaving a paper trail.

I thought it was the hula hooping that was the final straw for her and the actual reason she resigned?

Regardless; by definition all Julie-Ann can comment on is her own experience and it's very much possible for her to have experienced gender-based harassment, even multiple times, yet it not being systemic to GitHub.

Of course, "I was mistreated at X" sounds much less powerful than "there's a gender discrimination at X", but one example of the former does not prove the latter, and refuting this example also does not prove the latter does not exist.

there seems to be a palpable thirst by some for the smoking gun that tech is overrun with mysogynistic brogrammers. it was out in full force here. it's depressing to see my field play into the hand of gossip mags like valleywag. i have no problem with flushing out bad actors like the people who were found to act unprofessionally. they are the minority though. to take their behavior and try to paint a whole industry is sad and usually being done by people whose identities and personal brands are defined by this issue.

hired investigator finds employer innocent. I'm shocked!

But it wasn't good enough for Horvath: in order to get her point across -- and to play with your head -- she needs you to believe that you to believe there was "no investigation."

Where things jumped the shark is where men watching women voluntarily hoola hooping at a company event triggered an industry-wide freak out about sexism through the magic of blogs and twitter. (With Valleywag et al laughing all the way to the bank.)

the point about falsifiability comes in when that distressed person makes widely communicated public accusations about the conduct of not just individuals but an entire company and in this case due to the environment of paranoia about sexism an entire industry. if you are going to make claims about systemic gender discrimination then you are opening yourself up to criticism and the need to provide evidence.

> Ultimately she conducted over 50 interviews during a four week period.

Hardly, that would be bullying. Sexism is systemic by definition.

Because she explicitly called out that the source of the problem was gender discrimination. Whether she was mistaken or whether the investigation failed to find the problem no one knows for sure, but it is not surprising that this case was closing related to sexism when the victim claimed that was the cause.

I shouldn't expect better from HN, but it's amazing how much stock people put in the words of corporations trying to cover their asses, even if they are start ups. Everyone stops applying critical thinking when you criticize start ups because of the ridiculous start up boosterism mentality we've adopted.

Shouldn't these sort of investigations be done by a legal agency? Not that legal agencies are always unbiased, but an investigator appointed by a corporation seems obviously suspect.

Rhoma’s report includes personal stories, private thoughts, documents, and all kinds of details that were shared for the purpose of the investigation, not for public consumption. We are trying to be transparent, but I hope you understand that there are privacy concerns preventing us from sharing the report in full.

You assume here that someone is holding back, but we don't know that either.

This is an interesting revelation. (Actually it's not a revelation. It clears a doubt on our minds after Julie's incident.) Also, I have always wondered why none of GitHub's female workers have supported her or spoken to Github's allegedly rotten, sexist working environment so far.

> They also saw what happened to Julie and probably would not have been treated very well at work if word got out that they were speaking critically about the company You imply GitHub's female employees read prepared scripts to the investigator about their working conditions.

I like to think that I would, but none of us know how we would react until put in that situation.

This did not become a gender issue when "other people support[ed] that claim." This became a gender issue the moment Julie claimed she was harassed because she was a woman. Whether her claims are invalidated or not doesn't change the gender-based nature of her claims--it would simply mean that her claims (which are still gender-based!) are not supported by the evidence.