Ada Initiative No Longer Partnering with GitHub

http://adainitiative.org/2014/04/ada-initiative-no-longer-partnering-with-github/

by gortok • 12 years ago

103 125 12 years ago

diego2• 12 years ago

This reads like a prejudicial post, based on a biased interpretation of unclear events. Not what I would expect from an organization whose goal is to fight against prejudice.

maldeh2• 12 years ago

The post only deals with ending association, and doesn't make any direct accusation against Github. As a feminist organization devoted to protecting women in the workplace from similar (but not necessarily identical) circumstances, it's only prudent to distance themselves at this point of time regardless of whether Github's actions were truly gender-biased.

diego2• 12 years ago

"The sum of these events make it impossible for Ada Initiative to partner with GitHub at this time."

Why? It doesn't follow from the description of the events. Have they spoken with someone at Github? Are they being pressured by their members or other people? Do they have evidence that GH is worse in those respects than other organizations they partner with? Is ending the partnership the best possible course of action both for their cause and for their members?

waseem_• 12 years ago

Shouldn't it be 'innocent until proven guilty' in this case? This certainly spreads some negative advertisement for Github. If the case is not clear, they should wait till it's clear.

ssmoot2• 12 years ago

"It is also contrary to our principles to be silent when our existing sponsors and collaborators' actions consistently do not support our mission."

This seems verifiably false since Github did in fact sponsor conferences, efforts and perks.

So one bad story, that the details aren't entirely clear on, that resulted in the ousting of a founder, means Github, despite going out of their way to put money on the table to support the cause, isn't worthy?

"With friends like these..." seems apt.

sitkack3• 12 years ago

And they can patch things up later. Makes total sense in the now term.

baddox13• 12 years ago

There are direct accusations against Github:

It was shortly followed by a blog post from the resigning co-founder which included a clear threat of legal action against anyone who said he or his wife had engaged in gender-based harassment or discrimination.

That's a direct accusation, and a false one. The threat was against false accusations.

The sum of these events make it impossible for Ada Initiative to partner with GitHub at this time. ... We will not accept future sponsorships from or partnerships with GitHub unless the situation changes significantly. ... We are working hard to create a world in which women can participate in open source software, Wikipedia, and other areas of open technology and culture without harassment, intimidation, or discrimination. Sometimes this means refusing to partner with or accept sponsorship from specific people or organizations. It is also contrary to our principles to be silent when our existing sponsors and collaborators' actions consistently do not support our mission.

It doesn't get much more direct than this.

whiterabbit23• 12 years ago

Where those women "to protect" are treated like babies who have no say of their own.

slowmotiony• 12 years ago

Are you surprised?

bicknergseng2• 12 years ago

Seems to me like a decision that will not help to further the initiative's goals. Feels like diplomacy by isolation and cutting communication.

sheetjs• 12 years ago

The Ada Initiative supports women in open technology and culture through activities like producing codes of conduct and anti-harassment policies, advocating for gender diversity, teaching allies, and hosting conferences for women in open tech/culture.

If there is a sense that Github doesn't have a proper anti-harassment policy in place, distancing certainly doesn't hurt the initiative's goals

jarrett3• 12 years ago

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the post, but I understood it to say that what the authors perceived as a "threat of legal action" was a significant factor in their decision. I presume that is a reference to Tom Preston-Werner's comment: "we are prepared to fight any further false claims on this matter to the full extent of the law."[1]

Just to be clear: I'm only stating my interpretation of Ada's comments. I know nothing of what actually transpired at GitHub, thus I have not formed an opinion about it. Nor do I claim to know whether anyone threatened or intended to threaten legal action.

[1] http://tom.preston-werner.com/2014/04/21/farewell-github-hel...

Edit: In case it wasn't clear from the above post, I'm not taking sides with or against Ada, Github, or anyone else. I'm stating what I took to be Ada's reasoning, but not endorsing nor criticizing that reasoning.

ssmoot2• 12 years ago

Why should such a threat (if you were to interpret it that way), from the very person who was ousted reflect poorly on Github?

What does AI expect Github to even do about that? It seems completely irrational.

aaronem• 12 years ago

I suppose it depends on the particular prejudice in question.

sneak• 12 years ago

The Ada Initiative is a notorious drama-generating concern troll organization. They are not a positive force and this sort of behavior is unsurprising from them.

baddox13• 12 years ago

Where do they say that their goal is to fight against prejudice? I scanned their about pages, and my impression is that their primary goal is to support women.

jarrett3• 12 years ago

Fighting anti-female prejudice could conceivably be part of a strategy for supporting women. At least, it wouldn't be surprising if an organization dedicated to supporting group X fought prejudice against group X.

dbloom3• 12 years ago

Your criticism is equally applicable to any advocacy organization that distances themselves from an alleged situation that they morally oppose.

For example, would you say the same thing about EFF and ACLU speakers canceling their RSA conference talks, due to a "biased interpretation of unclear events" of RSA collaborating with the NSA?

abjorn• 12 years ago

There's a whole lot more clarity in the actions of the NSA than there are with this situation. There isn't a single amount of proof that's been given to anyone outside of GitHub of the investigation that can say one way or the other who is in the wrong. It's a bunch of he said, she said.

danso4• 12 years ago

Sorry, but that's not the case here.

Horvath alleges that illegal behavior took place. Github has said that their investigation has found no such thing, leaving things at an impasse until Horvath produces the evidence that she claims to have.

The NSA likewise says that no illegal behavior took place. Independent investigations by other arms of the government, including the Senate, have found otherwise. Furthermore, some of the behavior that the EFF and ACLU object to -- such as the collection of metadata -- the NSA do not deny that they are doing it. They only claim that such activity is legal and beneficial.

Until Github takes a stand or makes an assertion with which we can agree or disagree with, the situations are not the same. Right now, Github is basically being asked "Have you stopped sexually harassing your female employees yet?" and its refusal to answer that question is apparently grounds to judge Github.

whiterabbit23• 12 years ago

No, it's more like you learn through media that you talk has been cancelled because of some organization's "biased interpretation of unclear events".

dsl• 12 years ago

This reads like a prejudicial post

It is. Do some background research. The Ada Initiative is a radical feminist organization and does more harm than good.

anigbrowl2• 12 years ago

Not really. As a small nonprofit, Ada initiative probably doesn't have the resources to deal with controversy and so it's better to cut ties than to put itself into a charged political situation which would threaten its mission.

vdaniuk• 12 years ago

Ada initiative received various resources from Github on multiple occasions so the outcome is that they have less resources now.

lawnchair_larry3• 12 years ago

Haha, very subtle. For a moment I thought you were serious.

b1naryth1ef4• 12 years ago

Ironically the post reads extremely sexist. "We're offended by due process! Ahhhh the female lost; must be sexism!". I'm not arguing Github hasn't handled this situation as well as possible, but really?

WalterSear• 12 years ago

The fact that they handled it at all, did so publicly, removed key personnel who were involved, and yet were sanctioned for doing so, shows you the poor quality of dialog we have regarding gender relations in tech.

And the counterproductive, zero-sum game that modern gender advocates get wrapped up in playing - that is a cause of it.

b1naryth1ef4• 12 years ago

The thing that frustrates me is that the only reason we can even sit here and discuss this properly is that Github is such an open company. If someone comes out of Microsoft and Google (low and behold there have been multiple cases), the best you can expect is a response of "We've handled the situation internally, and those involved have been disciplined in a way <company> deems proper".

Guvante2• 12 years ago

Ahhhh the female lost

Did she? The offending member quit, so it isn't really a loss.

I'm not arguing Github hasn't handled this situation as well as possible, but really?

The discussion afterwards brought up that many of the witnesses external of GitHub were not contacted, which if true shows that their selection of external auditing used a biased basis to prove no harm was done.

b1naryth1ef4• 12 years ago

I mean in the sense that Github found no wrong doing. Regardless of the fact that she quit, and the co-founder left. If you really believe Github investigation was lackluster, that's probably another discussion. My point is simply that the post is inherently sexist, favoring the assumption of wrongdoing rather then a discussion or argument against Github's reasoning/investigation.

rootedbox2• 12 years ago

Ironically. There wasn't due process. Also your fake quote which marginalizes the situation is in fact sexist itself.

b1naryth1ef4• 12 years ago

I'd love to hear you argument against Github here? How did they incorrectly handle this situation in your eyes? Also when you get a chance, might wanna check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

GUNHED_1582• 12 years ago

Reading the whole story, couldn't find any sign of gender biased action from GitHub.

waterlesscloud• 12 years ago

I haven't followed this too closely, but GitHub got rid of the people involved, didn't they? So why break off now? I know I'm missing something here.

lkd3• 12 years ago

You can never please SJWs, no matter how much you bend backwards. They'll always find something to complain about. That's the meaning of their entire existence. That's what you're missing.

GUNHED_1582• 12 years ago

What I'm trying to say is that there was no "gender biased" activity involved, although there were some mistakes done by people who are not working there any more. As it seems clear from the accusers notes.

makomk2• 12 years ago

They got rid of one of the people involved who was acting in a grossly unprofessional way. They promoted the guy she complained was retaliating against her professionally for refusing to date him.

some_person• 12 years ago

This seems like a weird move to take. From what I can tell, there's no clear evidence of gender-related wrongdoing* . There is one person's strong allegations of it, and a handful of accounts saying otherwise (of mixed trustworthiness).

So, whether you believe there was gender-related wrongdoing depends entirely on whether you believe Julie Ann Horvath or an independent investigator, or neither.

As such, it seems like the only reasonable conclusion for an outside party considering an action related to github (going to work there, partnering with them, or even just using their product) is "we don't know."

The only way we could know, with any actionable level of certainty, would be if this went to court. Until that happens, though, any punitive action we take (like boycotting github, or ending partnerships with them), is based on a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach founded in a single person's accusation. That reeks of witchunting, and I'm more than a little concerned by it.

* Everything github has said seems to indicate only non-gender-related wrongdoing, specifically the founder's wife pressuring (unintentionally, according to her) employees into helping with her charity.

zhemao2• 12 years ago

Really? Ada Initiative is going to throw away a partnership that was beneficial to them and their constituents because of unproven allegations of harassment by a founder and his wife against a single employee?

If Github was truly hostile towards women, why would they support the Ada Initiative in the first place? Sponsoring two conferences "to support women in open technology and culture" is not something a misogynistic organization would do.

I do not envy Github's PR staff. It seems like they are going to have a hell of a time repairing the damage from this incident.

comrh3• 12 years ago

Github as a corporate entity and Github as a cultural place to work are different things. You can still have misogyny in your organization while the company promotes the opposite.

rjknight2• 12 years ago

Indeed. To borrow a phrase from Ralph Waldo Emerson: "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons"[1]. If you do have a misogynistic workplace then sponsoring anti-misogynist causes may be a way of covering that up (in environmental circles this is known as "greenwashing").

[1] http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/31953/the-louder-...

Wilya• 12 years ago

Sponsoring two conferences "to support women in open technology and culture" is not something a misogynistic organization would do.

Of course they would. No organization is likely to official advertise that they are hostile towards women, and sponsoring this kind of events is an easy PR operation. That says absolutely nothing about the day-to-day situation within the company.

sitkack3• 12 years ago

Who said they were throwing it away? Distancing one's self is not burning a bridge. I thought the press release was very mature and thought out. The Ada Initiative's goal isn't to help github grow up, it is to help women and girls in tech.

And yes, one always has to sacrifice something on principle, otherwise they wouldn't be principles, just more profitable choices.

zhemao2• 12 years ago

Who said they were throwing it away?

They did. "We will not accept future sponsorships from or partnerships with GitHub unless the situation changes significantly."

The Ada Initiative's goal isn't to help github grow up, it is to help women and girls in tech.

Free private repositories "to over 500 women learning to write open source software" isn't beneficial to women and girls in tech? Having a well-known, well-funded, and (until recently) well-respected company sponsoring conferences isn't beneficial to women and girls in tech? I wasn't saying that they should care about how this affects Github. I'm saying they should care about how this decision affects them and their ability to carry out their stated mission.

jpwright• 12 years ago

If Github was truly hostile towards women, why would they support the Ada Initiative in the first place?

It's never that simple. Almost everyone says they want more women in tech. But few take steps to actively promote that -- by increasing hiring of women, by fighting misogynistic elements of company culture, etc. Misogynistic company cultures are far more likely to arise through unconscious propagation of stereotypes and behaviors than from misogynistic leadership.

The Ada Initiative isn't trying to call Github misogynistic. It's just saying they haven't done a very good job of living up to their principles.

lawnchair_larry3• 12 years ago

I would argue that it is worse PR to be aligned with the Ada Initiative. They are doing github a favor here.

lkd3• 12 years ago

So they were leeching money and resources from GitHub, and using them in a sexist manner, and they're not going to do that anymore?

That'll show 'em!

rjknight2• 12 years ago

This is a tough one. We have Horvath's allegations, and we have confirmation from Github that at least some of them were true. Clearly, bad things happened and the result is the resignation of a former CEO and founder, so it's not as though there have been no consequences.

I would be interested to know which allegations the Ada Initiative think have not been addressed, and how they would like them to be addressed.

Rantenki• 12 years ago

Do we really expect that any findings of wrongdoing would be publicized? If their audit publicized that sexual or gender based harassment had occurred, that opens them up to a pretty serious lawsuit. This outcome is pretty much the only one you can expect, regardless of the real events.

Also, the ADA initiative doesn't really have a choice here either. Either draw a hard line, or look like they aren't able set the same standards that they ask from others.

Finally, if the investigation at Github turned up real mistakes of judgement, why weren't they itemized? We are left guessing what the investigator found. Github has that report, yet they are being evasive about it's contents. Air that stuff out. Stating that the allegations are unfounded at the same time as revealing that undisclosed mistakes in judgement occurred, combined with pushing out a founder: doesn't smell right.

stcredzero5• 12 years ago

The Geek Feminism Wiki has a wide range of resources such as an explanation of why sexualized environments are harmful to women.

Sexualized environments harmful? Color me curious! So I read the referenced page:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment

Those are all cogent points! If any hetero identifying male wants to dispute them, I challenge him to spending a weekend in The Castro neighborhood of SF and write a completely truthful essay chronicling his comfort level. He's either going to end up supporting the above points about sexualized environments by documenting reduced emotional comfort levels, or he's going to demonstrate that he's a paragon of not-giving-a-# -- which while admirable, being one should not be a requirement for working someplace in an office. Keep in mind that going to The Castro is a leisure activity and such a situation is a whole lot more voluntary than going to work.

It turns out that many of our ancestors were smart and wise people and not all of them were merely grunting superstitious simpletons. A sublimated sexuality hidden behind a facade of polite society can be a powerful tool for facilitating consensuality. The point being that such social norms can allow one to opt out of activities they don't care to be a part of. Granted, there are also ways in which sublimated sexuality can be used to reduce consensuality though the use of social pressure. Again, the key is consensuality, and whether or not power relationships support or undermine individual freedom, not sexuality in its entirety.

It strikes me as odd that sexuality should be wholly removed from such huge swathes of human experience. Not only is this notion odd, but as history demonstrates, it's starkly unrealistic. The kind of polite society that promotes "live and let live" as a communal good arose for good reasons. As always, things that naturally evolve have flaws, but the project of social reform, most feminism included, rests on the underlying assumption that such things can be fixed.

jonahx• 12 years ago

If any hetero identifying male wants to dispute them, I challenge him to spending a weekend in The Castro neighborhood of SF and write a completely truthful essay chronicling his comfort level.

I used to live right near the Castro and spent lots of time there. I also lived in West Hollywood for years. I always felt completely comfortable in both places, and not because I am a paragon of not giving a shit. Sorry, but being looked at or hit on by a man is not, in itself, a traumatic experience. I know your post is probably motivated by empathy, but the above comment comes off as really weird and homophobic.

stcredzero5• 12 years ago

Sorry, but being looked at or hit on by a man is not, in itself, a traumatic experience.

You are reading something into what I wrote that I am not saying. Being looked at or hit on by people male or female that one isn't interested in isn't necessarily traumatic, but certainly the usual expectation is that it isn't completely devoid of discomfort. If that were true, then there would be no social cost to such activity. This isn't the case for most contexts. (And you know as well as I do that there do exist specific contexts -- certain times and places -- where that's what the expectations are, that one is there to be hit on.)

And I will venture to guess that such environments are places you normally went and felt comfortable in -- people respected your boundaries in a way you found satisfactory, because you opted to be in a place where those were to your liking. For many men in North America, the social norms in many places in The Castro in SF or The Monstrose in Houston (where I lived for many years) are not the ones they are normally accustomed to. They will feel some discomfort. If they acknowledge the truth of that, then they will acknowledge the discomfort of some women in the workplace.

EDIT: And it's those individuals in particular who have the most to gain from engaging in this gedankenexperiment. As for you, this would probably be preaching to the choir.

Dewie• 12 years ago

He's either going to end up supporting the above points about sexualized environments by documenting reduced emotional comfort levels, or he's going to demonstrate that he's a paragon of not-giving-a-# -- which while admirable, being one should not be a requirement for working someplace in an office.

No matter what your experiences are, it will prove my point ← seriously?

stcredzero5• 12 years ago

No matter what your experiences are, it will prove my point ← seriously?

I'm playing the odds here. There are a few odd ducks that opt to be in contexts where social norms are not to their liking. The vast majority of people go where they feel comfortable. The main point has to do with consensuality, so for most psychologically normal people, an honest account will support my point.

I can understand, though, if someone finds my mention of The Castro somewhat "othering." The othering wasn't my intention. It was a gedankenexperiment about being outside norms that support one's chosen boundaries. There are also a whole panoply of unspoken social norms and power relationships that change and come into play as well. Only holistic experiences, actual or imagined, are efficient for communicating these.

vampirechicken2• 12 years ago

Where there is arbitration, there is seldom justice.

stcredzero5• 12 years ago

Often, "arbitration" is used as window-dressing for a severe power imbalance to continue. Arbitration only deserves to be called such if it's entered into voluntarily by two parties with good intentions.

baddox13• 12 years ago

How could GitHub initiate anything better than a third-party investigation? Is there some way to turn yourself in for an alleged crime, then deny that you committed the crime and go through the government court system? It's not clear to me what GitHub could have done better.

panzi• 12 years ago

I might be biased to the meaning of significant because I had a course of statistics once, but isn't the person in question stepping down a significant change? It is a significant change in his life. These seem to be pretty vague demands. What do they think would be a significant change?

facepalm5• 12 years ago

I have enough faith in women to think that for every radical feminist who jumps ship because of this, two reasonable women will enter IT.

Who knows, actual female developers might be put off by radical feminism using them for their agenda.

discodave• 12 years ago

Please define "radical feminism" and how it applies to this situation?

facepalm5• 12 years ago

In this case one obvious aspect is having the basic belief that "a woman complaining of abuse is always in the right".

lawnchair_larry3• 12 years ago

The Ada Initiative.

pyronite• 12 years ago

Your hypothesis is that two "reasonable women" will enter IT as a result of Julie Ann Horvath and another former employee feeling ostracized at GitHub?

facepalm5• 12 years ago

I don't know what happened with JAH, but it seems obvious that the Ada initiative judges without having any inside information. That's the real issue.

Besides, it seems possible that women who work at GitHub don't quit because JAH is gone, if some accounts are true (ie the Jane Doe on Medium article).

But you are right, the JAH incident itself probably doesn't motivate anyone to join IT (neither men nor woman).

Then again, perhaps eliminating drama from IT (by eliminating drama people) will in the long run entice those women to join.

CoachRufus87• 12 years ago

"We will work to wind down the free private repository partnership in a way that causes minimum harm to the women using them."

Taking away their free private repos seems pretty harmful.

baddox13• 12 years ago

It was shortly followed by a blog post from the resigning co-founder which included a clear threat of legal action against anyone who said he or his wife had engaged in gender-based harassment or discrimination.

Actually, it was a clear threat of legal action against anyone who made false accusations.

notwedtm2• 12 years ago

Which, if we are to believe the results of the investigation, would be everyone.

quadrangle• 12 years ago

This was ill-conceived from the get-go. GitHub is proprietary and encouraging people (women or men) to get private repos there is not a service to Open Source.

mrsaint• 12 years ago

It's safe to say that GitHub won't depend on the partnership with Ada... private repositories were offered for free to select individuals/women - that doesn't sound like a big deal to me, at least. If anyone is looking for private repos for free, they could get them @ https://bitbucket.org/.

railsdude• 12 years ago

Except that feminists doesn't seem to like BitBucket as well.

smacktoward• 12 years ago

It's a good thing we have a user named "railsdude" here to explain to us what feminists think.

yeukhon• 12 years ago

Just curious, who makes the decision? The people who run the Initiative? What about the members? Are the majority of members and participants (people who benefit from the initiative's works) fully in supporting this break up?

Have they asked people to vote or not? Why do their opinions not matter?

I don't know what kind of work they do with Github other than hosting repository and sponsorship -- which means it doesn't stop people fro using Github or mentioning github.com/<username>/<reponame> on slides.

So what's the problem with the report?

Are they not happy with the whole "third-party independent investigation"? (Someone said in other HN threads that the investigators didn't reach out to Horvath until the end of the investigation). That shouldn't be a good reason to quit the partnership.

Are they angry at the "[we, github] found mistakes" (which probably means very poor management)? That's still not a good enough reason to quit. Every comapny has some kind of problems too.

Or are they fully convinced that Github is lying and Horvath is telling the truth? Which one? This is probably the worst reason to quit partnership.

So, which one?

danso4• 12 years ago

This is disappointing.

OK so let's ignore Github's investigation; what other sides to the story are there besides what the accuser told TechCrunch and what she alludes to in tweets? If Github needs further punishment, this has to be instigated by the accuser, just like it would be in a civil/criminal case. Horvath has said that she believes the treatment of her was outright illegal -- and that she has evidence of this. This is not a situation in which an accuser/whistleblower backs down because they don't want to be exposed...Horvath, to her credit, has put her name to these allegations. But alleging is not enough to mandate a punishment. Since Github has also made its defense and is standing by it....are we supposed to side automatically with the accuser?

Github is now in a "have you stopped beating your wife?" predicament. I don't see how the Ada Initiative can pronounce such a judgment unless they are privy to whatever decisive evidence Horvath is currently holding on to.

notwedtm2• 12 years ago

Wasn't their an anonymous posting from within Github that said the Horvath was spreading lies about Theresa sleeping with other men, and that her baby wasn't Tom's?

That seems like at least a motivation for the actions, and at the far end of the spectrum, a reason for it.

arjie• 12 years ago

There is an anonymous posting that said that the other anonymous posting is false.

http://pastebin.com/tpMF2G0A

noir_lord2• 12 years ago

Seems like a strange decision unless they know more than said in this blog post to end a relationship that could benefit both sides.

That said I'm fiercely opposed to organisation's like the Ada Initiative since they are inherently discriminatory in nature, I'm in favor of Egalitarianism.

If you don't think they are discriminatory imagine -

---- "The Turing Initiative - Supporting men in open technology and culture"

"The Turing Initiative welcomes men of all kinds, and specifically welcomes trans men and genderqueer men. We strive to be an intersectional social justice organization." ---

We shouldn't be demanding equality for one group or another we should be demanding it for everyone.

Ada Initiative - Support all people in open technology, That I would donate to.

inklesspen• 12 years ago

And if computer science were a field in which men have historically been underrepresented, with company after company having culture issues about "femprogramming culture", your Turing Initiative might have a reason to actually exist.

noir_lord2• 12 years ago

Even if it did have a reason to exist it would still be discriminatory which was my actual point.

roeme• 12 years ago

To anyone criticising their decision for whatever reason; the key lies in the phrase

The sum of these events make it impossible for Ada Initiative (...)

To me, this reads that it's not about who has done what etc. But rather that one doesn't want to keep working with a company where an affair like this goes down the way it has. As some agreed before here on HN; github, or rather the participants in this affair acted, or seemed to act, like a bunch of immature teenagers. It's understandable that this irks business partners, as its simply not professional - usually what business is about (Or more often, pretends to be. But that's not too relevant here). Especially when your mission includes social/society topics, like the Ada Initiative.

I don't know, maybe it's the Ada Init. acting immature here.

Or maybe the whole "echo chamber" around github et al needs to grow up (seriously, usually such FUD, dirty laundry, who-kisses-whom etc. is written about in very low grade magazines, one would assume such are not read by techies/hackers). It would explain why many articles related to that are consistently upvoted (thankfully, they seem to vanish rather fast as well).

Or maybe there's a real, general problem of our/this society lying below all that; but I doubt that. (Not that there are no problems at all).

But serious discussion about this should go to a social science HN, in my opinion. I would prefer if we all could nudge the scope of HN back to tech stuff (or fields where YC backs startups, since it seems to expand since recently).

Cause I'm getting a little fed up with all this excitement and talk about failed social interaction between some other humans, which in contrast to the billions of other similar mishaps on this planet, just happen(ed) to be affiliated with a company whose products are often used around here.

whiterabbit23• 12 years ago

So, women who signed up to those repositories had no say in this decision? I think they should've been asked first, what THEY want. Some projects might have contributors on GitHub. Ada Initiative promises to accommodate those people, but why weren't they talked to and accommodated before making this decision? It's so much for Ada Initiative "helping" women treating them merely like pawns.

Ada Initiative No Longer Partnering with GitHub

Related Stories