12 ms·

She didn’t “refuse to fix it when asked”. She agreed with the proviso that she could have a meeting to figure out what she was and was not permitted to publish.

She didn’t “refuse to fix it when asked”. She agreed with the proviso that she could have a meeting to figure out what she was and was not permitted to publish. The response was to decline to meet and fire her. It’s entirely plausible that the paper is bunk; however, when someone is willing to come down that hard to prevent an idea being published, I tend to err on the side of “worth finding out what”.

darawk 6y ago
> She didn’t “refuse to fix it when asked”. She agreed with the proviso that she could have a meeting to figure out what she was and was not permitted to publish. I think that is in dispute. Jeff Dean claims she did refuse to fix it. > It’s entirely plausible that the paper is bunk; however, when someone is willing to come down that hard to prevent an idea being published, I tend to err on the side of “worth finding out what” But they weren't trying to prevent the idea from being published. They certainly knew by firing her they'd give it far more attention than it would otherwise get. What they wanted was not to put their name on this idea.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
the-dude 6y ago
She wasn't fired, she offered her resignation.
- danielheath 6y ago
  She offered “to work on an end date”. Whether that counts as a resignation or not is likely to be a matter for the NLRB.
  - the-dude 6y ago
    Suppose your girlfriend announced she was working on an end date, how would you feel?
    - free_rms 6y ago
      I'd fire her in response, it's still a firing. This technicality matters for unemployment and COBRA, and it has a concrete definition.
      - the-dude 6y ago
        This is not a discussion about the technicalities, I am sure you are aware.
Aunche 6y ago
That's one interpretation of her demands. Mine is that she was preparing to shame the "privileged white men" who were blocking her. https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1331757629996109824 https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1331757629996109824
m4x 6y ago
> She didn’t “refuse to fix it when asked”. She agreed with the proviso that she ... Are you sure she agreed to fix it? According to her tweets she agreed to take her name off the paper, not to fix it, and only if they agreed to her conditions which included releasing the names of all the reviewers involved. From Jeff Dean's email: > ... including revealing the identities of every person who Megan and I had spoken to and consulted as part of the review of the paper and the exact feedback If I was in their position, I would be extremely uncomfortable releasing the names of the reviewers with the likely result that they would be doxxed by Gebru on Twitter

darawk 6y ago

> She didn’t “refuse to fix it when asked”. She agreed with the proviso that she could have a meeting to figure out what she was and was not permitted to publish. I think that is in dispute. Jeff Dean claims she did refuse to fix it. > It’s entirely plausible that the paper is bunk; however, when someone is willing to come down that hard to prevent an idea being published, I tend to err on the side of “worth finding out what” But they weren't trying to prevent the idea from being published. They certainly knew by firing her they'd give it far more attention than it would otherwise get. What they wanted was not to put their name on this idea.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

the-dude 6y ago

She wasn't fired, she offered her resignation.

danielheath 6y ago
She offered “to work on an end date”. Whether that counts as a resignation or not is likely to be a matter for the NLRB.
- the-dude 6y ago
  Suppose your girlfriend announced she was working on an end date, how would you feel?
  - free_rms 6y ago
    I'd fire her in response, it's still a firing. This technicality matters for unemployment and COBRA, and it has a concrete definition.
    - the-dude 6y ago
      This is not a discussion about the technicalities, I am sure you are aware.

Aunche 6y ago

That's one interpretation of her demands. Mine is that she was preparing to shame the "privileged white men" who were blocking her. https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1331757629996109824 https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1331757629996109824

m4x 6y ago

> She didn’t “refuse to fix it when asked”. She agreed with the proviso that she ... Are you sure she agreed to fix it? According to her tweets she agreed to take her name off the paper, not to fix it, and only if they agreed to her conditions which included releasing the names of all the reviewers involved. From Jeff Dean's email: > ... including revealing the identities of every person who Megan and I had spoken to and consulted as part of the review of the paper and the exact feedback If I was in their position, I would be extremely uncomfortable releasing the names of the reviewers with the likely result that they would be doxxed by Gebru on Twitter