Everyone says this because it sounds obviously simple.

It's complete BS though. You spend 2/3'rds of your working life at work. The people you socialize, interact with and share common challenges are at work.

Unless you meet your partner in college, or high school or happen to have enough time in a shared extra-curricular (which a lot of us don't) then where exactly are you going to meet people at all.

Moreover, no part of this problem was a result of her relationship with another GitHub employee, except when people wanted some ammunition to use against her.

Totally agree. Plus, the article didn't mention (and it shouldn't), whether she met her partner at Github or not. They may as well be a couple since college.

I'd prefer not to be in a relationship with a co-worker, since I fear, it would be more difficult to keep the job out of our personal life than visa versa. But, if I'm really attracted to a single co-worker more than physically, I'd just ask her out for a coffee or drink and happily deal with whatever positive or negative things might happen.

Not doing anything, just because you think its unprofessional or inappropriate is way more unreasonable in my opinion.

Exactly. Mature adults form relationships with other adults. There is nothing wrong or icky about it. The more time people spend at work, the more likely they are to find partner there. Note that startups often not only expect long hours of work, they also expect you to spend a lot of time socializing with colleagues.

Expecting her to reject potential stable long term relationship just because the guy has the same employer does not sound reasonable to me. Plus, we do not even know whether they started to be together before she joined the company.

At big paranoid organizations (CIA, NSA, etc.), they actively encourage internal relationships and marriages, as it simplifies security modeling. But not really in the same group.

You are encouraged to have relationships within the community, but not necessarily at the same agency or within the same directorate.

In a division the size of GitHub (in terms of total employees), a relationship would be frowned upon and one of you would likely be transferred.

Those two also actively recruit Mormons for their very-above-average patriotism. Which is neither here nor there, but hey. As good a thread as any to go OT.

Actively encourage how? Genuinely curious, do you get a joint bonus if you marry a cow-orker or something?

Social events, peer pressure.

It makes a lot of sense in such organizations, as it satisfies the employees' need for close human relationships without compromising the company's paranoid culture.

In this case--and likely in all for-profit companies--it only magnified the problem by adding another employee to the drama.

Pro tip: Love is hard to find, so fuck the haters if you find it at the workplace. There is more to life than keeping your job.

I was getting really confused by all the uses of "partner". Is she a lesbian is that it? I would they could just say girlfriend so I would know what was going on.

Its not 1995 anymore. "Partner" is a perfectly correct term for any couple in a long-term relationship. I use the term "partner" quite frequently to refer to my relationship—and whether I'm gay or not, or whether Ms Horvath is so, is none of your business. You have no need, nor any inherent right, to "know what is going on."

my confusion is the term "partner" has a completely different meaning in a a business context. I am just saying that it was confusing to me. For much of the article I thought every time they said "partner" they were referring to an employee who worked with her in some sort of group or buddy system. It can also obviously mean a partial owner in the business.

well, fair enough, but the right way to indicate your confusion over that point isn't to ask whether she's a lesbian.

Is it the word "lesbian"? I apologize if that is considered offensive. I spent some time trying to think of what the most appropriate term would be, and I really couldn't think of anything better. What is the politically correct term to use?

No, its not the word "lesbian." Its the implication that a) you have a need to know whether she's lesbian or not; and b) that her status as lesbian or otherwise is relevant to the real issue, which is her status as a target of harassment.

I get that you're not trying to be offensive. What I don't get the sense you understand is that you don't have an inherent right to know things like her sexual orientation, history, background, favorite color, or anything else she doesn't volunteer.

How is it relevant to the story?

It's a gossipy story involving sexual attraction. How isn't it relevant? If you feel it's none of your business, then the whole story is none of your business either.

Would the actions of the founder's partner have been excusable/understandable either way? I don't think so, and if not then it isn't relevant (IMO).