Simply put: all work published to Google repos is implicitly affiliated with Google.

In my team's case we would include expectation-setting language in the README.md so that it was clear that the project was not an officially-supported Google product.

As far as I know, no-one ever lost their job for failing to set that expectation. A gentle correction from legal was sufficient to set the world right.

▲

frollogaston 7 hours ago | parent [-]

But there's an approval process to create such a repo under the Google name, right? I'm not seeing that he followed that.

▲

cdata 7 hours ago | parent [-]

When I was there, there was no universal process; different teams had different processes based on their focus. There was a launch process for Google products and there was the open source office for approving open source code (which amounted to a rubber stamp in my experience; they mainly checked for boilerplate issues). As I said above, my team and others were allowed to publish at our discretion.

Even if this person violated that process, it is an extreme consequence to fire them for that infraction.

▲

magicalist 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Releasing vibe coded handling of google account credentials seems like the biggest problem with this.

Agreed it's gross if the big problem with execs was that it got social media buzz and it embarrassed official products or something.

▲

whstl 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The repo is still online and is official [1], so Google doesn't really seem to care about its existence.

[1] https://developers.google.com/workspace/drive/api/samples

	▲	magicalist 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's a fair point that it's still up, though looking just now for two minutes there are at least some issues with auth[1] which would make me really not trust it. It was just speculation about what could be bad enough if they really did have permission to release it, but the OP is being so cagey below now I'm just wondering if they got release permission but misrepresented what they would be releasing or something. > and is official [1] FWIW no idea what you're trying to point out on that page unless you mean the one link to a different project in the same github org indicates the org is official, but that never seemed in doubt in this thread of comments. [1] https://github.com/googleworkspace/cli/issues/780