3 ms·

We don't know the full story here. IBM allows open source work. But there are rules, particularly about transparency. Just consider the sco lawsuit that won't

We don't know the full story here. IBM allows open source work. But there are rules, particularly about transparency. Just consider the sco lawsuit that won't die, and you may get an inkling why. This person appears to be in the open source / linux part of ibm. IBMers all must accept open source contribution guidelines. It sounds like this person simply didn't fully follow. Managers response may have been heavy handed but again none of us here knows details unless somebody provides them. I notice there's four other ibm addresses so there is a story there. Disclaimer and disclosure - IBMer who contributed openly and with management awareness and never got this kind of stern instruction :-/

m463 5y ago
what state did you work in? did you pre-approve the work?
- MojRacun 5y ago
  I'm actually a happy IBMer (unpopular opinion here I'm sure:), and happen to have a great long term relationship with my management chain, so I inform them of everything, both in a friendly and official capacity. Makes everything easy. I even told my boss when I had a completely unrelated side business (music at parties) etc. When it comes to open source contributions, both business conduct guidelines and open source mandatory yearly certs are unambiguous about transparency and approval of open source contributions. So it's pretty mandatory I think to inform, and limited if any impetus not to open open about it. Working for a big corporation is a bit cyberpunky/Snowcrashy in that way I suppose.
dakial1 5y ago
IBMer her also. I don't know the VNIC initiative but it might be a question of contract, where all IBMers working on that specific open source project need to clearly disclose (being an IBMer) and the email is the way to do it (IBM might measure the participation). Might also be a question of tracking a "conflict of interest", where the professional in question might work on a similar proprietary product inside the company. IBM certainly allows you to do your side gigs, but you need to be transparent with the company about what it is and that there is no conflict with your work.
jgrowl 5y ago
Thanks for this. I felt myself reaching for the pitchfork. There are too many unknowns here. No one really wins in situations like these. Unless proprietary tech is used, I think I would advocate for laws protecting people from being restricted working on projects that provides such a public good... but that is another argument entirely.

m463 5y ago

what state did you work in? did you pre-approve the work?

MojRacun 5y ago
I'm actually a happy IBMer (unpopular opinion here I'm sure:), and happen to have a great long term relationship with my management chain, so I inform them of everything, both in a friendly and official capacity. Makes everything easy. I even told my boss when I had a completely unrelated side business (music at parties) etc. When it comes to open source contributions, both business conduct guidelines and open source mandatory yearly certs are unambiguous about transparency and approval of open source contributions. So it's pretty mandatory I think to inform, and limited if any impetus not to open open about it. Working for a big corporation is a bit cyberpunky/Snowcrashy in that way I suppose.

dakial1 5y ago

IBMer her also. I don't know the VNIC initiative but it might be a question of contract, where all IBMers working on that specific open source project need to clearly disclose (being an IBMer) and the email is the way to do it (IBM might measure the participation). Might also be a question of tracking a "conflict of interest", where the professional in question might work on a similar proprietary product inside the company. IBM certainly allows you to do your side gigs, but you need to be transparent with the company about what it is and that there is no conflict with your work.

jgrowl 5y ago

Thanks for this. I felt myself reaching for the pitchfork. There are too many unknowns here. No one really wins in situations like these. Unless proprietary tech is used, I think I would advocate for laws protecting people from being restricted working on projects that provides such a public good... but that is another argument entirely.