11 ms·

The way I'm interpreting this, it's not _because_ they used a personal address, but rather that they weren't allowed to contribute to VNIC [for contractual reas

The way I'm interpreting this, it's not _because_ they used a personal address, but rather that they weren't allowed to contribute to VNIC [for contractual reasons], and using a personal email address does not magically bypass that restriction. (The current title is "IBM employee forced to stop kernel work for using personal email address", which is an interpretation likely missing context)

ctvo 6y ago
Makes sense, but: "Hey John, there are legal reasons preventing us from working on VNIC even in an unofficial capacity as IBM employees. I've attached a document outlining the company position as background. Let's chat more about this on Thursday in our 1:1."
- lolinder 6y ago
  I suspect from the tone of the email that the manager may have already tried that route and gotten pushback. It feels very much like a manager who is tired of the excuses and trying to be as unequivocal as possible so as to be 100% clear. And that's assuming we even have an accurate statement, which is a big assumption. Aside from the missing context, we frankly don't know that any of this text was written by the manager.
  - sam0x17 6y ago
    That's being a bit generous. It's entirely possible the manager could be an asshole at best and in violation of FLSA at worst.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    The notion that the communication could wind up on the LKML, HN, or more widely distributed, could still argue for restraint in voice. The employer ultimately has all the power here. Bullying ... doesn't add much.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      Depending on internal policy, this could be reason enough for the employee to be fired. Unless explicitly authorised, I’m not allowed to quote an internal email on a public forum. As I read it, it looks like it was decided, by IBM, the employee would no longer be a maintainer and adding a personal email to the list of maintainers was a misrepresentation of their current role.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        I suspect that HR is probably discussing termination procedure as we speak and this will proceed unless the PR pressure is overwhelming and makes it difficult to retaliate.
        miga 6y ago
        Unlikely since termination would mean that Lijun can resume work on the kernel.
        dredmorbius 6y ago
        That might depend on non-competes (legal in most states outside California), and how they're interpreted. IBM's bad-will generation here is large.
        rbanffy 6y ago
        Maybe, but he still won't be paid for it.
hummusandsushi 6y ago
Sounds like a reasonable interpretation. The phrasing of the message that the developer claims to have received is still concerning even keeping that in mind.
- lolinder 6y ago
  Yes, it's concerning, but it has to the feel of being the end of a long conversation. I'm picturing something like this: Manager: You're not allowed to contribute to VNIC. Employee: But I'm doing it on my spare time! Manager: You're still not allowed to contribute to VNIC. Employee: But I'm using my personal email. Manager: * the email quoted * --- It feels like someone who's hit the end of their rope with a long back-and-forth and is trying to close any remaining loopholes just to be done with the conversation.
  - hummusandsushi 6y ago
    Very good point, the message may be taken out of context that would change the interpretation of the message significantly.
shepardrtc 6y ago
Any sort of administrative action or warning should not have to be interpreted. If that is the case, the warning should have been explicit that they are not allowed to contribute in any way because of said contracts. Instead, there's hand-wavy complaints about a "hobby" and very aggressive and cultish, "You are an IBM employee 100% of the time".
- momothereal 6y ago
  The included message is probably lacking a lot of both written and unwritten context.
- lolinder 6y ago
  Remember that all we see is the bit of the email (presumably?) that the employee chose to post in the commit message. We don't know what other context there is. This feels like the last email in a long chain of emails, with a manager who's just done with excuses and trying to shut down any further argument in advance.
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    Thank you thank you for posting this, comments like this are a reason I love HN and despise places like Twitter, where the name of the game often just seems to be to take stuff out of context in the hopes of getting a juicy, negative soundbite. This manager could be an asshole, or he could just be exasperated after previous communication with the employee. Point is, we just don't know, and it's dangerous to draw conclusions based on the single email that the aggrieved individual chose to post.
    - shepardrtc 6y ago
      > he could just be exasperated after previous communication with the employee Then they are a very poor manager. That kind of tone and language should never be used. If it has gotten to that point, then the issue should be escalated to HR. But it doesn't sound at all like they're exasperated. It sounds like they're a bully.
maxerickson 6y ago
Yeah, it appears to overlap with their day to day work: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20200814075921.88745-5-ljp@linux.ibm.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20200814075921.88745-5-ljp@li... In the current employment environment where employers do assert rights over the output of employees, it's not that strange that the employer would instruct the employee to not muddy the context of the contributions. This is reasonably separable from whether this is a good way to organize things as a society.
ajross 6y ago
As I interpret it, it's not even that. The instruction is to remove his personal email from the MAINTAINERS file, not to halt work on the project. Now, maybe that was said offline, we certainly have no evidence. But the most obvious interpretation is that Lijun Pan was employed by IBM to work on the Linux kernel driver for this piece of IBM hardware, and IBM (unsurprisingly) wants all contributions credited to them and not to individuals. Most employers would have similar rules if you ask them. Certainly mine wouldn't want me using my personal address for stuff they paid me to do. Is the way this was done maybe a bit hidebound, corporate and uncharitable? Yeah. It's IBM, duh. But absent other evidence it doesn't seem like this devleoper is being pulled off a project for using a personal email.
- momothereal 6y ago
  The fact that the entire entry was removed, as opposed to simply changing the address, combined with the tone of the message, makes me think otherwise. However, I'm basing this off the exact same information as you (presumably), so it's a bit of a moot point until someone wants to pitch in with more authority.
  - scintill76 6y ago
    Agreed. “remove yourself completely from the maintainers file”
- m463 6y ago
  As I interpret it, he cannot make updates at all, even though he's using his personal email address. The important bit might be: what state he is in. Then to a lesser extent, what kind of work he does for IBM and what kind of work he does on the kernel.
- JonathonW 6y ago
  For a little additional context, a few days ago, Pan removed himself (using his IBM email address) from the maintainers list in the same file and added himself (using the gmail address) to the reviewers list. The linked commit removes Pan entirely. There’s more going on here than is visible from the out-of-context quote in the commit message.
cycomanic 6y ago
To quote the quote given in the commit: "As an IBM employee, you are not allowed to use your gmail account to work in any way on VNIC. You are not allowed to use your personal email account as a "hobby". You are an IBM employee 100% of the time. Please remove yourself completely from the maintainers file. I grant you a 1 time exception on contributions to VNIC to make this change." Your interpretation is not obvious to me at all. To me that reads that the person was using is private address to work on the kernel as a hobby and IBM objected because he is considered to 100% at IBM. My interpretation of this is of the typical corporate overreach were they claim everything you do is theirs.
- gkoberger 6y ago
  You and the person you responded to interpreted it exactly the same way, I think. This IBM employee isn't allowed to contribute to VNIC. Why? I dunno. But the problem isn't if a personal address is used or not, but rather this specific IBM employee can't contribute to VNIC. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the fairness of that, but rather that the OP was saying "it wouldn't have been any better if they had used their IBM address." To your last point... I doubt that's what's happening here. I don't think IBM wants ownership, but rather is protecting themselves from any sort of litigation or undermining an agreement.
  - technion 6y ago
    That's how I read the text initially - but the diff still notes multiple @linux.ibm.com email addresses as maintainers.
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    You're correct, I actually misread the original poster (or he/she edited their post?). Anyway, after reading a bit more through the thread, I did not realise that VNIC is a IBM driver. It seems like the real situation is a bit more complex. I would say though, the "You are an IBM employee 100% of the time" is really bad management IMO.
    - deleted 6y ago

ctvo 6y ago

Makes sense, but: "Hey John, there are legal reasons preventing us from working on VNIC even in an unofficial capacity as IBM employees. I've attached a document outlining the company position as background. Let's chat more about this on Thursday in our 1:1."

lolinder 6y ago
I suspect from the tone of the email that the manager may have already tried that route and gotten pushback. It feels very much like a manager who is tired of the excuses and trying to be as unequivocal as possible so as to be 100% clear. And that's assuming we even have an accurate statement, which is a big assumption. Aside from the missing context, we frankly don't know that any of this text was written by the manager.
- sam0x17 6y ago
  That's being a bit generous. It's entirely possible the manager could be an asshole at best and in violation of FLSA at worst.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  The notion that the communication could wind up on the LKML, HN, or more widely distributed, could still argue for restraint in voice. The employer ultimately has all the power here. Bullying ... doesn't add much.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    Depending on internal policy, this could be reason enough for the employee to be fired. Unless explicitly authorised, I’m not allowed to quote an internal email on a public forum. As I read it, it looks like it was decided, by IBM, the employee would no longer be a maintainer and adding a personal email to the list of maintainers was a misrepresentation of their current role.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      I suspect that HR is probably discussing termination procedure as we speak and this will proceed unless the PR pressure is overwhelming and makes it difficult to retaliate.
      - miga 6y ago
        Unlikely since termination would mean that Lijun can resume work on the kernel.
        dredmorbius 6y ago
        That might depend on non-competes (legal in most states outside California), and how they're interpreted. IBM's bad-will generation here is large.
        rbanffy 6y ago
        Maybe, but he still won't be paid for it.

hummusandsushi 6y ago

Sounds like a reasonable interpretation. The phrasing of the message that the developer claims to have received is still concerning even keeping that in mind.

lolinder 6y ago
Yes, it's concerning, but it has to the feel of being the end of a long conversation. I'm picturing something like this: Manager: You're not allowed to contribute to VNIC. Employee: But I'm doing it on my spare time! Manager: You're still not allowed to contribute to VNIC. Employee: But I'm using my personal email. Manager: * the email quoted * --- It feels like someone who's hit the end of their rope with a long back-and-forth and is trying to close any remaining loopholes just to be done with the conversation.
- hummusandsushi 6y ago
  Very good point, the message may be taken out of context that would change the interpretation of the message significantly.

shepardrtc 6y ago

Any sort of administrative action or warning should not have to be interpreted. If that is the case, the warning should have been explicit that they are not allowed to contribute in any way because of said contracts. Instead, there's hand-wavy complaints about a "hobby" and very aggressive and cultish, "You are an IBM employee 100% of the time".

momothereal 6y ago
The included message is probably lacking a lot of both written and unwritten context.
lolinder 6y ago
Remember that all we see is the bit of the email (presumably?) that the employee chose to post in the commit message. We don't know what other context there is. This feels like the last email in a long chain of emails, with a manager who's just done with excuses and trying to shut down any further argument in advance.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  Thank you thank you for posting this, comments like this are a reason I love HN and despise places like Twitter, where the name of the game often just seems to be to take stuff out of context in the hopes of getting a juicy, negative soundbite. This manager could be an asshole, or he could just be exasperated after previous communication with the employee. Point is, we just don't know, and it's dangerous to draw conclusions based on the single email that the aggrieved individual chose to post.
  - shepardrtc 6y ago
    > he could just be exasperated after previous communication with the employee Then they are a very poor manager. That kind of tone and language should never be used. If it has gotten to that point, then the issue should be escalated to HR. But it doesn't sound at all like they're exasperated. It sounds like they're a bully.

maxerickson 6y ago

Yeah, it appears to overlap with their day to day work: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20200814075921.88745-5-ljp@linux.ibm.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20200814075921.88745-5-ljp@li... In the current employment environment where employers do assert rights over the output of employees, it's not that strange that the employer would instruct the employee to not muddy the context of the contributions. This is reasonably separable from whether this is a good way to organize things as a society.

ajross 6y ago

As I interpret it, it's not even that. The instruction is to remove his personal email from the MAINTAINERS file, not to halt work on the project. Now, maybe that was said offline, we certainly have no evidence. But the most obvious interpretation is that Lijun Pan was employed by IBM to work on the Linux kernel driver for this piece of IBM hardware, and IBM (unsurprisingly) wants all contributions credited to them and not to individuals. Most employers would have similar rules if you ask them. Certainly mine wouldn't want me using my personal address for stuff they paid me to do. Is the way this was done maybe a bit hidebound, corporate and uncharitable? Yeah. It's IBM, duh. But absent other evidence it doesn't seem like this devleoper is being pulled off a project for using a personal email.

momothereal 6y ago
The fact that the entire entry was removed, as opposed to simply changing the address, combined with the tone of the message, makes me think otherwise. However, I'm basing this off the exact same information as you (presumably), so it's a bit of a moot point until someone wants to pitch in with more authority.
- scintill76 6y ago
  Agreed. “remove yourself completely from the maintainers file”
m463 6y ago
As I interpret it, he cannot make updates at all, even though he's using his personal email address. The important bit might be: what state he is in. Then to a lesser extent, what kind of work he does for IBM and what kind of work he does on the kernel.
JonathonW 6y ago
For a little additional context, a few days ago, Pan removed himself (using his IBM email address) from the maintainers list in the same file and added himself (using the gmail address) to the reviewers list. The linked commit removes Pan entirely. There’s more going on here than is visible from the out-of-context quote in the commit message.

cycomanic 6y ago

To quote the quote given in the commit: "As an IBM employee, you are not allowed to use your gmail account to work in any way on VNIC. You are not allowed to use your personal email account as a "hobby". You are an IBM employee 100% of the time. Please remove yourself completely from the maintainers file. I grant you a 1 time exception on contributions to VNIC to make this change." Your interpretation is not obvious to me at all. To me that reads that the person was using is private address to work on the kernel as a hobby and IBM objected because he is considered to 100% at IBM. My interpretation of this is of the typical corporate overreach were they claim everything you do is theirs.

gkoberger 6y ago
You and the person you responded to interpreted it exactly the same way, I think. This IBM employee isn't allowed to contribute to VNIC. Why? I dunno. But the problem isn't if a personal address is used or not, but rather this specific IBM employee can't contribute to VNIC. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the fairness of that, but rather that the OP was saying "it wouldn't have been any better if they had used their IBM address." To your last point... I doubt that's what's happening here. I don't think IBM wants ownership, but rather is protecting themselves from any sort of litigation or undermining an agreement.
- technion 6y ago
  That's how I read the text initially - but the diff still notes multiple @linux.ibm.com email addresses as maintainers.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  You're correct, I actually misread the original poster (or he/she edited their post?). Anyway, after reading a bit more through the thread, I did not realise that VNIC is a IBM driver. It seems like the real situation is a bit more complex. I would say though, the "You are an IBM employee 100% of the time" is really bad management IMO.
  - deleted 6y ago