6 ms·
The title seems misleading, the article specifically states this does not effect any current employees, presumably as they have none in China and Russia. > As
by bluehatbrit 7y ago
The title seems misleading, the article specifically states this does not effect any current employees, presumably as they have none in China and Russia.
> As such we feel a country block is the most humane solution at this time--especially because it affects zero current employees
- dredmorbius 7y agoThe block is on current non-residents of China or Russia from moving to those countries. <strike>Not on any present residents of those countries from having further access.</strike> <BOLD>See self-reply below, not the case.</BOLD> Though that is alluded to as a possibility, with complications. ________________________________ Update: My first read was incorrect.
- bluehatbrit 7y agoHm, upon a re-read I think you are right. Thanks for clarifying.
- dredmorbius 7y agoAnd on my own re-read: "Current team members are prevented from moving to these countries and remaining in a role that prohibits it." That would seem to apply to current employees in Russia / China who are in roles covered by the block. Which is kind of A Big Deal.
- zonidjan 7y agoNo? It would seem to apply to current employees who move to Russia/China who are in roles covered by the block. i.e. they would have the choice of moving and changing roles/quitting, or staying.
- dredmorbius 7y agoDepends on whether you read that as: X: "Current team members" A: "moving to these countries" B: "remaining in a role that prohibits it" X are prevented from BOTH A AND B. (X may do neither A NOR B) Or: X are prevented from (A AND B). Whether or not remaining in one of these countries and MOVING to a role that prohibits it is included in the prohibition is unclear. Someone's future transfer may hinge on that.
- zwayhowder 7y agoIt does block them from moving to that country. So if a current employee was planning to move to either country soon they'd be prevented from doing that. I've danced this dance at a previous company when we had an employee working from a country of interest for an extended period of time. They were air-gapped from our systems and it worked because they submitted everything by pull requests (the original way, sending git patches by email). They didn't have access to our CRM or any customer systems because several of our contracts - not just with governments but also major multinationals - prevented employees in certain countries from having access. Even when I traveled to the same country I used a burner laptop that was decommissioned when I returned. When we EOL'd laptops in the office they'd go in the burner pile to have one last holiday abroad before they were wiped again and sent to a local charity.
- dredmorbius 7y agoOr into affected roles. So, someone in, say, QA or documentation, looking to head into SRE or Support, would be unable to if they presently reside in China or Russia.
- zonidjan 7y agoAll the people who are saying they've never seen a contract with a term like this, I'm just sitting here wondering how my experience is the opposite...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- 3pt14159 7y agoI've done some travelling to risky places before (Kiev and other places) and even though the networks were hostile there, I still don't understand the point of pretending that Russia et al can't get into Gitlab whenever they want to. They can. Air-gapping isn't going to slow them down.
- iiertiosas 7y ago
- sytse 7y agoCorrect, this block would be for two functions (Site Reliability Engineer and Support) and we currently have no people in that role in China and Russia. Please note that we're still discussing this change. We work out in the open so you can see us working on it. I hope that people appreciate the difference between that and what you would see in a non-transparent company (probably nothing, they would just not open up a vacancy in the offices in that country).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- nkaronji 7y agoConcerns on privacy, data and IP are understandable. However, this ban would be a symbolic move with absolutley zero substance. The world is small and highly interconnected and it would be extremely easy for the Russian and Chinese governments to compromise and co-opt support staff from pretty much any country of their chosing. This will lulll your customers and your infosec teams into a false sense of security. Considering how forthcoming you are with the names, roles and location of your team. They would pick you off in a heart beat and you would not suspect or see it coming. The Chinese are extremely well entrenched across the global - with enough money to grease anybody's wheels. Not to mention it would be trivial for them to get their "agents" passports from anywhere in the world
- type0 7y agoI appreciate that Gitlab discusses this in open, the only real disappointment that it's so one sided.
- dredmorbius 7y agoIt affects no employess (per clarification in this thread) presently in affected roles. It could affect present employees who are in other roles, located in China or Russia, from moving to a covered role, whilst continuing to reside in China or Russia.
- dang 7y agoOk, I've temporarily changed from the submitted title ("Gitlab blocks current employees and stops future hires in China and Russia") to the page title—which I assume is accurate but is uninformative—until we get clarity about what an accurate, neutral title would be. Does anybody want to suggest one? Edit: I've provisionally gone with "Gitlab blocks hiring SREs and Support Engineers in China and Russia". If that's wrong, or if anyone can suggest a more accurate and neutral title, we can change it again.