My primary point was that we can't assume things that the memo doesn't say. From your comment:
> "From what I see, it was an investigation into gender-based discrimination/harassment claims"
I think you are making some assumptions, and my guess is that whoever wrote the GitHub statement wanted you to come to that exact conclusion.
This is why they kept repeating the phrase "gender-based"--they want the reader to focus on the gender claims and then GitHub can try to render those claims invalid with their investigation results.
In fact, the precise scope of the investigation was not provided in the statement--we don't know what they investigated. There are many possibilities, including the one you suggested. Another is that they might have looked into a range of issues, found a few problems, and then decided to focus their public statements on the gender-based claims because they knew they could win those.
Mostly, I'm saying that this GitHub post doesn't tell us much (not saying it should, just saying it doesn't).
My primary point was that we can't assume things that the memo doesn't say. From your comment:
> "From what I see, it was an investigation into gender-based discrimination/harassment claims"
I think you are making some assumptions, and my guess is that whoever wrote the GitHub statement wanted you to come to that exact conclusion.
This is why they kept repeating the phrase "gender-based"--they want the reader to focus on the gender claims and then GitHub can try to render those claims invalid with their investigation results.
In fact, the precise scope of the investigation was not provided in the statement--we don't know what they investigated. There are many possibilities, including the one you suggested. Another is that they might have looked into a range of issues, found a few problems, and then decided to focus their public statements on the gender-based claims because they knew they could win those.
Mostly, I'm saying that this GitHub post doesn't tell us much (not saying it should, just saying it doesn't).