Hacker News Reader

Comment by bonsai_bar | Hacker News Reader

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)

View on HN

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.

> 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.

> 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?

> 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 ("Code Samples" near the bottom).

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

Policies change or have subtle context-specific details. Even after 7 years, people can lack basic knowledge for certain situations.

Exactly my thoughts. This reads to me like a case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing, and a scape goat being jettisoned to save face afterwards.

The repo wasn't even taken down.

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

Seems kind of rude.

The tool was publicly announced by the person's manager.

It clearly wasn't moonlighting or done without management's support/knowledge.

Wow, depending on what exactly the manager said / did, that's pretty bad

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.

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.

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.

According to the Twitter thread his manager is the one who announced it.

I'd much rather be an "engineer" than a "Googler" (I don't work at Google) or any other corporate cutesy name. No thanks...

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.

> 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?

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?

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.

Looks like Addy Osmani is leaving, too.

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?)

> Google was creating an official thing quite close to his thing

Just link to it.

It's mentioned in the original link for this post.

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)

Would you like them

in a house?

Would you like them

with a mouse?

AI am Sam ...

Sam AI am ...

My program made green eggs and ham ...

Is there a smell of toast burning where you are?

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.

> they control when and if anything is released

I don’t think that’s how APIs work at all.

Upon reflection, the only thing this guy did wrong was put his name on the thing…

>Build cool shit and follow the proper release procedures for it.

By all reasonable measures, they did.

Ya we all can build cool shit all day if the world isn’t a litigious bitch.

“Actions have consequences”

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.

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.

tbh i assumed that is an official product too

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.

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/pytype/blob/main/docs/index.md / https://github.com/google/dopamine / https://github.com/google/go-tika

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.

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.

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.

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>

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.

> 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.

There are many things you should be able to do publicly without repercussion from your employer. However, your example is berating them, and I'm taking that literally: "to criticize in an angry manner".

If I read this correctly, then you believe your employer should be able to fire you if you angrily criticize them in public under your name. I agree in principle, that could damage their trust in your ability to do your job. Depending on specifics, that damage could be enough to justify firing you.

I don't understand why doing so anonymously should change the potential damage to their trust in you, if they later learn you said what you did.

you raise a good point, I was trying to take the example to the logical extreme by specifically using berating. in essence, the example would be the same as whistleblowing (mechanistically speaking)

So one would have to weigh the risks of being let go (and legal consequences if it was indeed whistleblowing) depending on the level of criticism being levied.

I disagree that the berating example is in any substantial way similar to whistleblowing.

I believe we are more on the same page than not, but I caution you to more closely evaluate an employee's obligations on how and when they speak about their employer, whether in public or where there's a chance of private speaking becoming public, regardless of the name or persona used.

I include whistleblowing, because some whistleblowing is not legally protected and, from an employment perspective, some whistleblowing requires that certain steps were first attempted or considered.

I've had to do that re-evaluation myself, from the employer side, and it changed my mind in some ways, even from my perspective as an employee.

(This sounds one sided only because we're not bringing up any employer obligations. I'm not in HR, but that re-evaluation more firmly entrenched my belief that HR is often a necessary evil.)

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.

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...)

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?

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.

People said the same thing about non-compete agreements.

Sorry, not buying that’s for anyone’s good.

I don't understand your point.

What I'm saying is that it might be "obvious" that it's ok to volunteer for a dog rescue group.

Is it equally as ok to volunteer to raise money for a dog rescue group operating in Gaza?

What about other charities operating in Gaza? What about in Israeli occupied territories?

> I don't understand your point.

Then you don’t know the history of the non-compete agreement in the tech industry.

For decades, people were wringing their hands and holding themselves back from living well because they couldn’t possibly work for another software company after Google, Microsoft, whomever - because the contract stated they couldn’t work for competitors.

Well, then States showed up and said “that’s not even legal”, and people stopped handwringing.

But before, it looked very much like this thread.

If I was working for a dentist, none of your questions would be viable (let alone reasonable) for the employer to be asking.

California has had a ban on noncompetes since the gold rush.

and yet this is all very recent:

1.) https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30843644

2.) https://eppscoulson.com/google-got-slapped/

3.) https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/ab-1076-and-sb-699-codify-cali...

That's political speech, and specifically protected in California outside of work. If you fire your employee for political activities outside of work, you still have to pay them, because they're going to sue you for lost wages, and win.

Another way to frame that question is: Should we remove the right for people to enter into such contracts?

"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.

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.

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.

> if you are a google exec

But that’s not who is being discussed. Why create a new topic?

If a low-level employee is part of a rescue accused of shooting all of the dogs, that’s just another day.

> 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

No problem with a standard morality clause in the contract, so they can pull the plug when you embarrass them.

I do have a problem with the idea that I need to check in with my employer every time I take a shit in my personal life.

Its not a new topic, the same applies for any employee as well. And no that's not just another day from the pov of google. That example was too extreme but even for minor things that can be a security concern etc if they are in active positions like that.

Also we are not talking about pooping? Why change the topic?

I like your shooting all of the dogs example.

That’s why I went with it - yes, a one-of-thousands engineer (or janitor, for that matter) from Google who also headed or even founded a dog shelter that shot all of the dogs is non-news, as far as Google and their legal team are concerned.

Same as an employee’s “pooping”.

Enforce or enact a morality clause, or explicitly pay me not to do things - beyond that, my business after hours is mine.

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.

In California, no. Under Labor Code section 96(k), you generally cannot be disciplined or fired for engaging in legal outside of work activities. If they do, you can sue for lost wages.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com