| ▲ | bonsai_bar 7 hours ago |
| Is it so extreme? If you work at Google, there's a very clear policy for doing any outside "work" (volunteering, an open source side project, a business, being on a board, etc.): if it's related to your day-to-day work and/or related to Google's business (which virtually anything software is), you need to fill out a disclosure form and get a go-ahead from legal. Obviously a Google Workspace CLI is related to Google. Why would you release this without getting a go-ahead? I'm sad that a clearly talented engineer who cares about users was fired. I wish more engineers cared enough to make things like this. But it seems like poor judgment from the engineer's side :( (Note: I do work at Google. This is my personal writing, though. Nothing to do with my employer) |
|
| ▲ | ashdksnndck 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It seems like the guy believed he was just doing his job for Google, not moonlighting? He released the project on Google’s own GitHub. It seems more like he misunderstood the necessary steps before making that release. |
|
| ▲ | jedc 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It looks like the account where this repo was published was the one used by Google Workspace DevRel? (And that’s the team this guy worked on.) That makes this quite a bit different situation than publishing the repo on a personal account. |
|
| ▲ | lokar 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Even setting the legal process aside, I would ask the team before releasing a tool for their product. Seems kind of rude. |
|
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | financltravsty 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This ethos doesn't gel with the old ethos and that's where the disconnect comes from. At one point Google was there to build cool shit and enable people to do it; not extract maximal amount of value and "being Evil" by the values of its time. |
| |
| ▲ | davidgay 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The open source policy described above was in place 16 years ago (I went through it to continue working on some existing projects), and I doubt it was very new then. | | |
| ▲ | Grombobulous 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | And it's not just about open source, it's about the author of this tool using trademarks and effectively impersonating Google. Judging by the screenshot of the repo, I think most people who download this would think that it's official Google software. | | |
| |
| ▲ | Arainach 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Build cool shit and follow the proper release procedures for it. There is a huge difference between something unrelated to your employer on a personal repo, youremployerrepo/api-samples, and calling something "Employer Majorproduct CLI" on an official employer repo which is bound to be confused for an official release. I would have been fired from every employer I've ever worked for of any size for doing something like that - including Google circa 2018. | | |
| ▲ | DANmode 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > follow the proper release procedures for it What happens when your thing or nothing close to your thing will ever see the light of day? | | |
| ▲ | no-name-here 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 1. If google said ok but don't release under google’s name/in google’s repo, do that. 2. If google said no this goes against our goals for the product, don't release it if you want to keep working for google? | |
| ▲ | sib 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Is that relevant here, given that Google was creating an official thing quite close to his thing at the same time? (And why are we writing like this?) | | |
| ▲ | gedy an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Would you like them in a house? Would you like them with a mouse? | |
| ▲ | seanhunter 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Fair to point out, the official google thing, was quite a lot worse than his thing. (I’m quite into the whole “Posting in free verse” idea) | |
| ▲ | DANmode 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Google was creating an official thing
quite close to his thing Just link to it. | | |
| |
| ▲ | Arainach 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | None of that is relevant. You're working on things for their employer, they control when and if anything is released. Most of us have worked on projects that were cancelled - even when that happens you don't just release it anyway. |
|
| |
| ▲ | financltravsty 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Just a very sad departure from more humanistic values towards "well technically their legal rights take precedence over common good." Especially that he's an "engineer" not a "Googler" or "a person." God what a fall from grace. | | |
| ▲ | mh2266 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'd much rather be an "engineer" than a "Googler" (I don't work at Google) or any other corporate cutesy name. No thanks... | |
| ▲ | debo_ 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I was there in 2005 and we were basically told point-blank that we couldn't open source _anything_ without running it by a manager first. This was at a time where all engineers were basically housed in the main 4 buildings on the north campus, so not yet all that big. Not sure what grace they fell from, but I found it to be a nauseating sanctimonious place even then. | | |
| |
| ▲ | vachina 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ya we all can build cool shit all day if the world isn’t a litigious bitch. “Actions have consequences” |
|
|
| ▲ | DANmode 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Being an employee of Google doesn’t give them any sway over my board position at an animal rescue, or anywhere else, unless my contract and pay reflects that. |
| |
| ▲ | sib 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Pretty sure that the agreement that Google employees sign (a "contract") when hired reflects exactly that. At least at did when I joined (I left > 3 years ago, speaking here only for myself...) | | |
| ▲ | DANmode 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is it legal (or moral) for an employer to keep you from being a board member of a dog rescue or a glove repair company without review? | | |
| ▲ | radishingr 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The answer is not that it matters, but as a matter of financial and legal controls they need to know and approve. Do they care? They probably are delighted, but also want to get all the paperwork set up to avoid problems. The space this comes from is the legal undue influence side where they need to give notice to shareholders about potential conflicts of interest, and it needs to be in the form of having a clear positive audit trail that they have told people to follow a clear policy with no grey area so that any deviation is an accident not willful failure to get people to tell them. | |
| ▲ | usea 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Another way to frame that question is: Should we remove the right for people to enter into such contracts? | |
| ▲ | altmanaltman an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Legally, yes. I mean it still depends on a lot of things but mostly at will employment contracts will have clauses about such things. You will have to get approval from legal before you can get on a board of even a dog rescue or a glove repair company. A practical consideration is simple like if you are a google exec and you are on board of a dog rescue company and that company gets hit with allgeations that you are just shooting all the dogs and selling their meat to some foreign nation. News will cover it as "Google Exec on Board of Evil Dog Rescue Company" so you extend that repuation risk to Google as well since you are actively employed there. Obviously an extereme example but that's the kind of logic they think of. Morals imo often have nothing to do with law, but fairness does. | |
| ▲ | nl 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The obvious answer is that "obvious lines" aren't at all obvious at the scale of Google. Googlers are well paid, and that pay reflects this. |
|
|
|