Would you say peer review without g4 mail (no cc) and with reviewers from completely unrelated teams is SOP? We might not have followed the same procedures, for me the latter is at best exception/unusual, the former is explicit attempt at covering up.
-
-
Replying to @delroth_ @skelterjohn
it's easy enough to do by accident. if the issue is that CLs shouldn't be submitted without g4 mail, then maybe critique shouldn't allow pressing 'submit' without 'mail' first. If it shows LGTM and eligible to submit...
2 replies 3 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @lizthegrey @skelterjohn
In context, would you interpret that as an accident or as an attempt to hide things (maybe realizing your team wouldn't approve of what you're doing)? I agree that accidents happen, but accidents correlated with controversial changes are rare².
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @delroth_ @skelterjohn
Liz Fong-Jones (方禮真) Retweeted Matthew Garrett
If her team wouldn't approve of what she was doing, then why does her tech lead back her?https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1207003914718998528 …
Liz Fong-Jones (方禮真) added,
1 reply 0 retweets 30 likes -
There's a difference between "management finds this inconvenient" and "this was done without the team's approval" or "this was done outside the team's process". and all of this is light years away from "this was a security breach."
1 reply 2 retweets 35 likes -
Replying to @lizthegrey @skelterjohn
I agree with all of that. I think the consequences for Kathryn are disproportionate and unjustified. I also think that Kathryn acted in a sketchy way and abused her privileges by deliberately bypassing the standard process. I don't think these are opposing viewpoints.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @delroth_ @skelterjohn
Then let's focus on the "disproportionate and unjustified" bit and Google's unusual recent harshness. Remember Google Walkout's gLinux desktop change? Can you imagine how likely it is that that kind of employee expression is going to happen under a retaliatory climate?
1 reply 0 retweets 19 likes -
we don't need to nitpick this situation to death; doing so is effectively undermining our interests as workers and helping management get away with labor rights suppression, sexual harassment, payouts, etc.
1 reply 1 retweet 36 likes -
The nitpicking is a straightforward defensive reflex; people are scared because everything that happened to the now 5 of us terminated could absolutely happen to anyone at Google, and it takes a certain degree of intentional cognitive dissonance to know that and still go to work.
2 replies 2 retweets 33 likes -
Please don't project your insecurities on others. Fear of Google firing me has never been a factor in my actions. If you were at all involved in the internal investigation efforts around Dragonfly you would probably know this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The difference between "getting fired after following SOP" vs. "getting fired after having taken specific actions to hide tracks and bypass usual review process" is *not* nitpicking. If you think it is, it's a valuable data point about your judgment and how much I should trust it
-
-
I guess it's not 'nitpicking' that you think using the web-based tools to ask for reviews and submit CLs is "specific actions to hide tracks and bypass usual review process", I should not have repeated that word.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @laurenceb @delroth_ and
And no, I was not involved in the internal investigation of dragonfly. But if you were involved in the things I was involved in, you'd know that I too was less afraid of being fired than most. Of course, now I'm not afraid of it at all, but that's another story...
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.