8 ms·

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

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)

financltravsty 3mo ago
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.
- vachina 3mo ago
  Ya we all can build cool shit all day if the world isn’t a litigious bitch. “Actions have consequences”
- financltravsty 3mo ago
  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.
  - debo_ 3mo ago
    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.
    - DangitBobby 3mo ago
      According to the Twitter thread his manager is the one who announced it.
  - mh2266 3mo ago
    I'd much rather be an "engineer" than a "Googler" (I don't work at Google) or any other corporate cutesy name. No thanks...
- Arainach 3mo ago
  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 3mo ago
    > 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 3mo ago
      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?
      - whstl 3mo ago
        It was clearly greenlighted by management. The person who made the announcement was Addy Osmani, who was manager of the fired developer at the time. This is in a Google-owned organization, with several other similar repositories, a lot of them using the same API.
        burakemir 3mo ago
        Looks like Addy Osmani is leaving, too.
    - sib 3mo ago
      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?)
- davidgay 3mo ago
  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 3mo ago
    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.
    - michaellee8 3mo ago
      tbh i assumed that is an official product too
      - Grombobulous 3mo ago
        You know this GitHub account might be more official than I thought? Maybe the problem is more to do with their approval process, which I guess negates a lot of my comments.
    - whstl 3mo ago
      This is clearly something done in official capacity, during working hours, with the knowledge and support of his manager, who announced the CLI. It says "This is not an officially supported Google product" because it's a DevRel sample/experiment, just like dozens of other Google repositories made by Google employees as part of their job. Even some other tools in github.com/google have as much: https://github.com/google/python-fire https://github.com/google/python-fire / https://github.com/google/pytype/blob/main/docs/index.md https://github.com/google/pytype/blob/main/docs/index.md / https://github.com/google/dopamine https://github.com/google/dopamine / https://github.com/google/go-tika https://github.com/google/go-tika
    - modo_mario 3mo ago
      That's because from what i gather so far it is a google repo with other tools using the same api they kept it in there since and even had it announced by the guy's manager at the time.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
lokar 3mo ago
Even setting the legal process aside, I would ask the team before releasing a tool for their product. Seems kind of rude.
- whstl 3mo ago
  The tool was publicly announced by the person's manager. It clearly wasn't moonlighting or done without management's support/knowledge.
  - lokar 3mo ago
    Wow, depending on what exactly the manager said / did, that's pretty bad
DANmode 3mo ago
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 3mo ago
  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 3mo ago
    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?
    - usea 3mo ago
      Another way to frame that question is: Should we remove the right for people to enter into such contracts?
      - saghm 3mo ago
        "Right" is a pretty dubious way of framing it when basically every company works this way. You don't really have any choice in the matter. Passing a law about this wouldn't be removing any rights of individuals any more than we "removed" their right to enter a contract for pay lower than minimum wage or with unsafe working conditions. A more fair way of phrasing it would be to say that we should remove the right of companies to require it.
        account42 3mo ago
        If you wanted you could also require companies to make this an option in the contract, which would it clear how much they are actually willing to pay for restricting peoples freedom outside of work in this way and gives employees the option of deciding if that tradeoff is worth it for them. I think that companies would not be willing to pay all that much for this if they couldn't just force it on everyone.
ashdksnndck 3mo ago
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.
- hn_throwaway_99 3mo ago
  > It seems more like he misunderstood the necessary steps before making that release. Dude worked there for 7 years. Saying "oh, he just didn't understand the policy for going through legal/management approval" just does absolutely not pass the sniff test.
  - whstl 3mo ago
    Plus there are 57 projects in that workspace from the same team, most using the same API, in quite a few the fired dev is participating. On top of that, the CLI project wasn't even deleted. If there were/are real problems there, Google hasn't acted on them in any proper manner, and has not communicated properly with any of the parts involved, which is natural when legal/HR is involved.
    - pydry 3mo ago
      This is definitely helps make the case that it was a spiteful exec primarily concerned with their own fiefdom that got the guy canned. I did think when the guy released the tool that it seemed a bit out of character for google to be that responsive to customer feedback.
  - cromka 3mo ago
    There's a small chance they actually still don't get it and that blog post is just a testimony to how unfairly hurt they feel.
  - PurpleRamen 3mo ago
    Policies change or have subtle context-specific details. Even after 7 years, people can lack basic knowledge for certain situations.
jedc 3mo ago
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.
- WinstonSmith84 3mo ago
  > That makes this quite a bit different situation than publishing the repo on a personal account. If that was the issue, it's not very hard to delete it either... Either nobody cares, or that repo is not as bad as for Google as it seems.
- morpheuskafka 3mo ago
  > getting grilled by legal about why the Google logo and brand colors are on the Google Workspace GitHub code repositories. The wording is very ambiguous, but to me it suggests the opposite. If legal was question why the logo was on the account profile picture, not just that specific repo's content, that would imply the entire account was unauthorized, right?
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Ukv 3mo ago
    > If legal was question why the logo was on the account profile picture [...] that would imply the entire account was unauthorized, right? This relies on assuming legal's action made sense, when Justin is likely mentioning it specifically because it didn't make sense. The Github account is linked to on https://developers.google.com/workspace https://developers.google.com/workspace ("Code Samples" near the bottom).
rpigab 3mo ago
Obviously a Hackernews thread on Google internal policy is related to Google (your employer).
mapkkk 3mo ago
Am I crazy for thinking that an employer should and has no say in whatever the fuck I do outside of work? As long as I'm not messing with company IP, I should be able to do what I want, no? Like, I should be able to even berate my employer, as long as I'm not doing it from a persona that's directly tied to my employer e.g. my real name or git handle etc. They might not like it, but they sure as shit shouldn't be able to fire me for it. This would include working on extending a company's products, so long as I don't use the proprietary knowledge I'm privy to. I realize that this guy published his thing under an alias directly tied to his work. My question was sparked from the general sentiment of your reply - and I am being genuine, sometimes I feel like this stance of mine is somehow "too radical" I understand that this is not reality in most of the world, but I'm genuinely asking. I'm in the EU and I'm not in the software/silicon valley industry; if that helps with context.
- saghm 3mo ago
  I pretty much agree with you in principle. I'm in the US (not in silicon valley but working in software for over a decade). Given my stance on a lot of things though I don't know how much evidence this is that this view isn't "too radical" but my (biased) take is that a lot of good ideas are radical until they aren't, and usually the ones don't ever become mainstream have better counterarguments than anything I've heard or been able to come up with against this view. I still don't really expect it to change in my lifetime though (in terms of what's legally allowed) just because of how massive a shift it would be.
  - mapkkk 3mo ago
    Thank you, I appreciate you sharing your views on this. Coincidentally, I've only recently learned of the Overton Window [0] which describes that the spectrum of acceptable ideas in a society is subject to shift. [0] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window>
- NBJack 3mo ago
  Regardless of what you or I think of the policy, most major software companies (Google included) have clauses in your employment contract around how you represent the company in a real or percieved official capacity. This wasn't just some account persona; it was published as if it were an official open source product endorsed by Google (complete with branding). The author apparently didn't have permission or legal right to do so, and publicly violated their agreement. Was the response short sighted? Up for debate. But unfortunately for the author, they have no real legal standing on this matter. Had it been their own repo, sans any branding, it would likely have been fine.

financltravsty 3mo ago

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.

vachina 3mo ago
Ya we all can build cool shit all day if the world isn’t a litigious bitch. “Actions have consequences”
financltravsty 3mo ago
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.
- debo_ 3mo ago
  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.
  - DangitBobby 3mo ago
    According to the Twitter thread his manager is the one who announced it.
- mh2266 3mo ago
  I'd much rather be an "engineer" than a "Googler" (I don't work at Google) or any other corporate cutesy name. No thanks...
Arainach 3mo ago
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 3mo ago
  > 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 3mo ago
    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?
    - whstl 3mo ago
      It was clearly greenlighted by management. The person who made the announcement was Addy Osmani, who was manager of the fired developer at the time. This is in a Google-owned organization, with several other similar repositories, a lot of them using the same API.
      - burakemir 3mo ago
        Looks like Addy Osmani is leaving, too.
  - sib 3mo ago
    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?)
davidgay 3mo ago
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 3mo ago
  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.
  - michaellee8 3mo ago
    tbh i assumed that is an official product too
    - Grombobulous 3mo ago
      You know this GitHub account might be more official than I thought? Maybe the problem is more to do with their approval process, which I guess negates a lot of my comments.
  - whstl 3mo ago
    This is clearly something done in official capacity, during working hours, with the knowledge and support of his manager, who announced the CLI. It says "This is not an officially supported Google product" because it's a DevRel sample/experiment, just like dozens of other Google repositories made by Google employees as part of their job. Even some other tools in github.com/google have as much: https://github.com/google/python-fire https://github.com/google/python-fire / https://github.com/google/pytype/blob/main/docs/index.md https://github.com/google/pytype/blob/main/docs/index.md / https://github.com/google/dopamine https://github.com/google/dopamine / https://github.com/google/go-tika https://github.com/google/go-tika
  - modo_mario 3mo ago
    That's because from what i gather so far it is a google repo with other tools using the same api they kept it in there since and even had it announced by the guy's manager at the time.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

lokar 3mo ago

Even setting the legal process aside, I would ask the team before releasing a tool for their product. Seems kind of rude.

whstl 3mo ago
The tool was publicly announced by the person's manager. It clearly wasn't moonlighting or done without management's support/knowledge.
- lokar 3mo ago
  Wow, depending on what exactly the manager said / did, that's pretty bad

DANmode 3mo ago

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 3mo ago
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 3mo ago
  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?
  - usea 3mo ago
    Another way to frame that question is: Should we remove the right for people to enter into such contracts?
    - saghm 3mo ago
      "Right" is a pretty dubious way of framing it when basically every company works this way. You don't really have any choice in the matter. Passing a law about this wouldn't be removing any rights of individuals any more than we "removed" their right to enter a contract for pay lower than minimum wage or with unsafe working conditions. A more fair way of phrasing it would be to say that we should remove the right of companies to require it.
      - account42 3mo ago
        If you wanted you could also require companies to make this an option in the contract, which would it clear how much they are actually willing to pay for restricting peoples freedom outside of work in this way and gives employees the option of deciding if that tradeoff is worth it for them. I think that companies would not be willing to pay all that much for this if they couldn't just force it on everyone.

ashdksnndck 3mo ago

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.

hn_throwaway_99 3mo ago
> It seems more like he misunderstood the necessary steps before making that release. Dude worked there for 7 years. Saying "oh, he just didn't understand the policy for going through legal/management approval" just does absolutely not pass the sniff test.
- whstl 3mo ago
  Plus there are 57 projects in that workspace from the same team, most using the same API, in quite a few the fired dev is participating. On top of that, the CLI project wasn't even deleted. If there were/are real problems there, Google hasn't acted on them in any proper manner, and has not communicated properly with any of the parts involved, which is natural when legal/HR is involved.
  - pydry 3mo ago
    This is definitely helps make the case that it was a spiteful exec primarily concerned with their own fiefdom that got the guy canned. I did think when the guy released the tool that it seemed a bit out of character for google to be that responsive to customer feedback.
- cromka 3mo ago
  There's a small chance they actually still don't get it and that blog post is just a testimony to how unfairly hurt they feel.
- PurpleRamen 3mo ago
  Policies change or have subtle context-specific details. Even after 7 years, people can lack basic knowledge for certain situations.

jedc 3mo ago

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.

WinstonSmith84 3mo ago
> That makes this quite a bit different situation than publishing the repo on a personal account. If that was the issue, it's not very hard to delete it either... Either nobody cares, or that repo is not as bad as for Google as it seems.
morpheuskafka 3mo ago
> getting grilled by legal about why the Google logo and brand colors are on the Google Workspace GitHub code repositories. The wording is very ambiguous, but to me it suggests the opposite. If legal was question why the logo was on the account profile picture, not just that specific repo's content, that would imply the entire account was unauthorized, right?
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- Ukv 3mo ago
  > If legal was question why the logo was on the account profile picture [...] that would imply the entire account was unauthorized, right? This relies on assuming legal's action made sense, when Justin is likely mentioning it specifically because it didn't make sense. The Github account is linked to on https://developers.google.com/workspace https://developers.google.com/workspace ("Code Samples" near the bottom).

rpigab 3mo ago

Obviously a Hackernews thread on Google internal policy is related to Google (your employer).

mapkkk 3mo ago

Am I crazy for thinking that an employer should and has no say in whatever the fuck I do outside of work? As long as I'm not messing with company IP, I should be able to do what I want, no? Like, I should be able to even berate my employer, as long as I'm not doing it from a persona that's directly tied to my employer e.g. my real name or git handle etc. They might not like it, but they sure as shit shouldn't be able to fire me for it. This would include working on extending a company's products, so long as I don't use the proprietary knowledge I'm privy to. I realize that this guy published his thing under an alias directly tied to his work. My question was sparked from the general sentiment of your reply - and I am being genuine, sometimes I feel like this stance of mine is somehow "too radical" I understand that this is not reality in most of the world, but I'm genuinely asking. I'm in the EU and I'm not in the software/silicon valley industry; if that helps with context.

saghm 3mo ago
I pretty much agree with you in principle. I'm in the US (not in silicon valley but working in software for over a decade). Given my stance on a lot of things though I don't know how much evidence this is that this view isn't "too radical" but my (biased) take is that a lot of good ideas are radical until they aren't, and usually the ones don't ever become mainstream have better counterarguments than anything I've heard or been able to come up with against this view. I still don't really expect it to change in my lifetime though (in terms of what's legally allowed) just because of how massive a shift it would be.
- mapkkk 3mo ago
  Thank you, I appreciate you sharing your views on this. Coincidentally, I've only recently learned of the Overton Window [0] which describes that the spectrum of acceptable ideas in a society is subject to shift. [0] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window>
NBJack 3mo ago
Regardless of what you or I think of the policy, most major software companies (Google included) have clauses in your employment contract around how you represent the company in a real or percieved official capacity. This wasn't just some account persona; it was published as if it were an official open source product endorsed by Google (complete with branding). The author apparently didn't have permission or legal right to do so, and publicly violated their agreement. Was the response short sighted? Up for debate. But unfortunately for the author, they have no real legal standing on this matter. Had it been their own repo, sans any branding, it would likely have been fine.