Their first project looks nice[1]. Hopefully, they'll do similar things in the future.

That list of staff does worry me, though. All of their Twitter streams are filled with counterproductive outrage. To give one example that's related to HN: After Y Combinator posted about diversity[2], @_danilo misconstrued Sam Altman's words to a cynical caricature[3]. Later, @_danilo got in a flamewar with Sam Altman[4].

It'll be great if GitHub can get these people to spend less time being angry and more time working toward productive ends.

1. https://github.com/blog/2037-github-is-a-proud-connecthome-p...

2. http://blog.ycombinator.com/diversity-and-startups

3. https://twitter.com/_danilo/status/492764323874222081

4. https://twitter.com/_danilo/status/492840606054363136

My impression of [4] is that it amounts to a protection racket scheme: "Your business is racist and sexist! I will continue to denounce it until you hire me." Of course, a lot of consultants will approach companies with a "your business sucks but I can fix it" routine but the difference here is the implicit threat to go on giving the company negative publicity if it didn't pay.

Snagging men and avoiding questions [0] and making sexual innuendos [1], while being racist [2]. But it's okay since they redefined the word to not include their form of racism.

[0] http://i.imgur.com/c9IHbKm.png

[1] http://i.imgur.com/XPMXW3l.png

[2] http://i.imgur.com/MBebKrJ.png

Where's that Github Code of Conduct I was looking for again?

>Be welcoming: We strive to be a community that welcomes and supports people of all backgrounds and identities. This includes, but is not limited to members of any race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, colour, immigration status, social and economic class, educational level, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size, family status, political belief, religion, and mental and physical ability.

Conveniently ignoring: all backgrounds, of any colour, of any social class and of any sex. Because they have a personal political beef with certain backgrounds, a certain colour, and a certain sex.

Real productive work, I'm sure.

>Curious what they are upto .

I'd answer this question with one word, cynical though the answer may sound to some: signaling. Whatever positive consequences for the socially disadvantaged their efforts might have going about it by hiring loud and popular self-appointed advocates looks a lot like a PR move. There is better bang for the buck in helping the poor in particular (e.g., through the effective charity community) and better expertise available to direct tech projects that might help them but those generally come without the glamour associated with Twitter personalities. Hiring them allows a company to leverage their existing social networks to present a certain image of itself.

Whoa I keep finding more people https://twitter.com/ammeep

https://twitter.com/davystevenson