| ▲ | nickv 12 hours ago |
| Yikes. I see Justin posted this, and I'm sure he can't say much - but this is an absolutely insane story. Google has gone from encouraging 20% time (to create amazing projects like this) to firing people for doing it. There seems to be some true maliciousness going on at Google. You have this, you have the open source Gemini CLI getting replaced with a shittier closed source Antigravity CLI, etc... etc... What is going on there? |
|
| ▲ | danudey 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It sounds like a big part of why he was let go is that he created a work-related product, possibly using his '20% time' meaning he created it while at work, and then released it with Google branding and logos, all of which without clearing it with anyone at the company, while his name is attached to the company. In other words, he created an extremely official-looking product and released it in a way that made it look extremely official and blindsided everyone when suddenly there's a viral Google Workspace tool released by a Googler with Google branding that wasn't released by Google. I'm not saying he should have been fired, necessarily, but he demonstrated _extremely_ poor judgement in doing this the way he did and put his manager and everyone else in an extremely awkward and uncomfortable position. |
| |
| ▲ | dwroberts 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The branding and logo on the embed comes from the org it is attached to, which is an official GitHub organisation owned by Google and contains many other open source repositories. I think there is probably way more to this story - maybe he was told about the upcoming official use/variant and was asked to not preempt it before the cloud
next conference with his one? | |
| ▲ | pydry 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Struggling to see how google was harmed by this but yea it's true he didn't dot the i's and cross the ts. I actually thought when it was released that it was a pretty clever move by google in a sea of bad decisions but they've cleared that misapprehension right up. | | |
| ▲ | stevage 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Google could definitely be harmed by an unofficial product release that gets lots of users but doesn't have any kind of official support behind it, and hence could make those users pissed off in the future. | |
| ▲ | frollogaston 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As a customer and dev, it's confusing to me when I look at Google's stuff and see official-looking unofficial CLIs. | | | |
| ▲ | jrochkind1 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > but yea it's true he didn't dot the i's and cross the ts. How do you know that's true? Do you have information the rest of us don't? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dmazzoni 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| When has 20% projects ever been about bypassing every launch process and just posting your product publicly? Google may be a big bureaucracy now, but launch approvals and processes are there for a reason. |
| |
| ▲ | MeetingsBrowser 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are literally hundreds of projects on googles github with the standard “this is not an official Google project” in the readme. |
|
|
| ▲ | notfromhere 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| its what happens when a company runs out of ideas and is mostly run by people with MBAs. Good ideas are now risky because it steps on the toes of someone's fiefdom |
| |
| ▲ | lokar 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | There have always been lots of ideas. The issue is the management consultants and finance took over. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | ex-aws-dude 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Maybe the policy is that you can’t just release 20% time projects publically? |
| |
| ▲ | nomel 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've never worked for an employer, from pizza delivery, to corporate intern, to multiple startup, to FAANG, that didn't have this VERY CLEARLY worded in the employment agreement, right up top: 1. Any work you do during company time/resources/equipment, is company property. 2. Anything public related to work, or that could be considered as competing or providing the service in the same space as work, needs to be vetted by the company. Along with public communication, etc. In my experience, this isn't some "what happens when MBA's run company" or "they run out of ideas", it's literally every company I've ever worked for. Was google previously an exception here, or are people just unfamiliar with the details of the 20% policy? Surely they didn't allow you to work on, for example, something for a competitor? There had to be some limitations, rather than a pure free for all, as seems to be suggested in the comments. | | |
| ▲ | dekhn 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The policy was always crystal clear, but at the same time, tons of people found it confusing. "I wrote this at home on my personal computer in my free time? Why does google own it? how can that be legal" came up a lot. People would get into huge fights with OSPO over this. | | |
| ▲ | userbinator 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Keeping a very strict "firewall" between your personal and corporate life is the best way to avoid such situations, but then again, these are Google employees we're talking about... | |
| ▲ | socalgal2 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Writing at home is irrelevant if what you're doing is related to the company's business. You can't be working for Google and making a browser, a document editor, a spreadsheet, a mapping site, etc... It doesn't matter if you do it on your own time. Yea, you can grow coffee and sell it at retail stores on your own time. No you can't complete directly with your employer. If it's some gray area then you either get permission first or wait for the courts if you get sued. This isn't unique to Google. It's basic common law. No contract needs to be signed. Competing with your employer is immoral. If you want to compete then quit and be a competitor. If you're taking their money as an employee then you have a "duty of loyalty" | | | |
| ▲ | fg137 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > "I wrote this at home on my personal computer in my free time? Why does google own it? how can that be legal" Interesting. Did they read their contract before signing it? | | |
| ▲ | dekhn 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | yes, many engineers (especially at google) are armchair lawyers and have all sorts of opinions about contracts and licenses. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | woadwarrior01 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You're absolutely allowed to release 20% time projects publicly. As in any large bureaucracy, there's a process for that which is taught during onboarding. What you're not allowed to do is skip the process. There's nothing Google specific about it and I've seen similar firings at other companies too. Skipping legal and corp comms review on any external public communication is grounds for termination. | |
| ▲ | danudey 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | He released the product with Google branding making it look extremely like an official Google project, and then it went viral and blindsided everyone who would have been involved in creating or approving this kind of tool internally. If I released a tool personally that I hadn't told anyone at work about and put my company's logos all over it and it went insanely viral then I would expect an extremely uncomfortable conversation with my manager, his manager, HR, and at least one lawyer. |
|
