4 ms·

She was subjected to a process that wasn't the norm at Google. I'd be pretty upset too. The details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25313994 https://news

She was subjected to a process that wasn't the norm at Google. I'd be pretty upset too. The details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25313994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25313994 Discussion about whether the review process was normal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25308847 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25308847

Jensson 5y ago
Other people circumventing policy doesn't mean that it is fine for her to do it. It is really hard to judge as you do without more data on the circumstances of the other people circumventing the policy and not getting punished, right now we have to take their word that what she did wasn't worse than what most others did. We can't know that. Similarly one engineer force pushing code to fix an issue might be fine, but another engineer doing the same thing might not be fine and the second gets investigated, is that unfair? We can't tell, there isn't enough information here.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  Why do we have to take Google's word and not hers? (Especially in light of corroborating witnesses who say that what she did was completely normal)
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Because plenty of other researchers working at Google regularly publish papers critical of Google and are just fine? Even Timnit had already done that many times, she just got into trouble this time but all the other papers she published was fine. If Google really cared about these researchers publishing critical pieces then Google would have shut down that entire group rather than just firing her.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      Right but the claim is that Google instituted a new policy, and applied it inconsistently without telling people, until it blew up in their faces when she was fired. Only after that did they formalize the policy, and saying that she was fired for circumventing and then questioning a policy that ostensibly didn't exist when she was fired doesn't have the same ring to it.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - Jensson 5y ago
        But you claim she was fired for being critical of Google. Maybe what you are saying here is right and she was just the first person fired since nobody followed the new guidelines and at some point they will face consequences, it could just as well have been anyone else. But I don't see how that would make Google look bad, it is normal to fire one of the offenders as an example when a group refuses to follow new guidelines, either you do that or you fire everyone. And hers case was especially easy, since she said she will leave the company if the policy isn't changed. Google didn't want to change the policy. What Google might have been wrong about here is if they reported this as her voluntarily leaving, even if you could argue it is Google firing her. But nobody really cares about that that detail, it isn't important and the story wouldn't blow up if that was the only thing they claimed Google did wrong.
        sillysaurusx 5y ago
        > And hers case was especially easy, since she said she will leave the company if the policy isn't changed. Google didn't want to change the policy. The policy seemed to be made up specifically for her paper. Her paper already passed the standard internal review, and she alerted them months before the conference that her paper was going to be submitted.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      This discussion over whether she was treated differently with respect to review is irrelevant. If Google, for whatever reason, wanted to have the paper undergo a bit of extra scrutiny, it's entirely within their purview.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
freyir 5y ago
She submitted her paper late for internal review when it was too late for revisions. It might be the case that most papers are submitted late for internal review, but most papers don’t expressly criticize the employer’s work. That’s an important distinction, and it was naive to not anticipate that the paper might get extra scrutiny. Regardless, being upset because you didn’t get your way doesn’t give you carte blanche to do unprofessional things that will get you fired. You can’t say “Give me X or I quit” and not assume there’s a chance your bluff will be called (especially when “X” is a demand for the company to violate its own policies).
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  But her paper passed the internal review. It failed some additional internal review that wasn't policy at the time.
  - freyir 5y ago
    No, there was only one internal review. It didn’t pass, and it was too late for her to make revisions because it was past the conference deadline.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      You're factually wrong. I was literally able to view her paper, and it's approved status, in the internal tool where papers are approved for publication.
      - freyir 5y ago
        This directly contradicts what Jeff Dean wrote: “A cross functional team then reviewed the paper as part of our regular process and the authors were informed that it didn’t meet our bar for publication” (emphasis mine).
        choppaface 5y ago
        That sentence was written after Dean had a lawyer represent him.

Jensson 5y ago

Other people circumventing policy doesn't mean that it is fine for her to do it. It is really hard to judge as you do without more data on the circumstances of the other people circumventing the policy and not getting punished, right now we have to take their word that what she did wasn't worse than what most others did. We can't know that. Similarly one engineer force pushing code to fix an issue might be fine, but another engineer doing the same thing might not be fine and the second gets investigated, is that unfair? We can't tell, there isn't enough information here.

joshuamorton 5y ago
Why do we have to take Google's word and not hers? (Especially in light of corroborating witnesses who say that what she did was completely normal)
- Jensson 5y ago
  Because plenty of other researchers working at Google regularly publish papers critical of Google and are just fine? Even Timnit had already done that many times, she just got into trouble this time but all the other papers she published was fine. If Google really cared about these researchers publishing critical pieces then Google would have shut down that entire group rather than just firing her.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    Right but the claim is that Google instituted a new policy, and applied it inconsistently without telling people, until it blew up in their faces when she was fired. Only after that did they formalize the policy, and saying that she was fired for circumventing and then questioning a policy that ostensibly didn't exist when she was fired doesn't have the same ring to it.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Jensson 5y ago
      But you claim she was fired for being critical of Google. Maybe what you are saying here is right and she was just the first person fired since nobody followed the new guidelines and at some point they will face consequences, it could just as well have been anyone else. But I don't see how that would make Google look bad, it is normal to fire one of the offenders as an example when a group refuses to follow new guidelines, either you do that or you fire everyone. And hers case was especially easy, since she said she will leave the company if the policy isn't changed. Google didn't want to change the policy. What Google might have been wrong about here is if they reported this as her voluntarily leaving, even if you could argue it is Google firing her. But nobody really cares about that that detail, it isn't important and the story wouldn't blow up if that was the only thing they claimed Google did wrong.
      - sillysaurusx 5y ago
        > And hers case was especially easy, since she said she will leave the company if the policy isn't changed. Google didn't want to change the policy. The policy seemed to be made up specifically for her paper. Her paper already passed the standard internal review, and she alerted them months before the conference that her paper was going to be submitted.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    This discussion over whether she was treated differently with respect to review is irrelevant. If Google, for whatever reason, wanted to have the paper undergo a bit of extra scrutiny, it's entirely within their purview.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

freyir 5y ago

She submitted her paper late for internal review when it was too late for revisions. It might be the case that most papers are submitted late for internal review, but most papers don’t expressly criticize the employer’s work. That’s an important distinction, and it was naive to not anticipate that the paper might get extra scrutiny. Regardless, being upset because you didn’t get your way doesn’t give you carte blanche to do unprofessional things that will get you fired. You can’t say “Give me X or I quit” and not assume there’s a chance your bluff will be called (especially when “X” is a demand for the company to violate its own policies).

joshuamorton 5y ago
But her paper passed the internal review. It failed some additional internal review that wasn't policy at the time.
- freyir 5y ago
  No, there was only one internal review. It didn’t pass, and it was too late for her to make revisions because it was past the conference deadline.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    You're factually wrong. I was literally able to view her paper, and it's approved status, in the internal tool where papers are approved for publication.
    - freyir 5y ago
      This directly contradicts what Jeff Dean wrote: “A cross functional team then reviewed the paper as part of our regular process and the authors were informed that it didn’t meet our bar for publication” (emphasis mine).
      - choppaface 5y ago
        That sentence was written after Dean had a lawyer represent him.