Yeah, it'll be interesting to hear GitHub's response if this aspect of the story is true. Those are some pretty serious allegations - influence over business and personnel decisions, reads Campfire chat logs, has spies within the company to keep an eye on what's happening, and, of course, intimidates employees. Quite damaging things.

What's the big deal? I am not a lawyer and I have no idea of the issues involved here, but surely if she was now made an employee and given a salary of $0, the fact that she was a significant investor (via her husband's shares) would make her relatively high-ranking within the company. So yes legally the fact that she didn't have that piece of paper (an employment contract) might matter, but why should it matter morally?

a) you can't fix the problems of the past by giving her a job now b) being a significant investor doesn't make you 'relatively high-ranking in the company.' You are either an employee with a high ranking job, or an investor. If you have no executive functions and are just an investor you are not entitled to intervene in day to day affairs unbidden. c) It matters morally because even if she had the paper that would not entitle her to talk and harass an employee with the tacit support and protection of a senior member of the company.