4 ms·

It’s a CLI for Google Workspace. Google Workspace is a genuine Google Product. Edit reply to person below (sorry, rate limit): > Just because you work for Goo

by nailer 4mo ago

It’s a CLI for Google Workspace. Google Workspace is a genuine Google Product. Edit reply to person below (sorry, rate limit): > Just because you work for Google does not mean you can release products under their name. Releasing open source projects that use company APIs is about 50% of the work of devrel staff. The rest is making content about what you and your customers did/could build.

magicalist 4mo ago
I mean, the GP is being overdramatic but releasing a vibe coded cli frontend for an official product in a google github org and that uses your google account credentials is a big deal no matter how unofficial you claim it is in the readme.
- dnfmfnfnfb 4mo ago
  This is extremely precedented. Google developer relations people do exactly that, all the time. Or at least they used to, all the folks I used to follow have left the company. You’ll find lots of open source projects in Google’s repositories which are just personal tools they built to scratch an itch, but are published under Google‘s name because that’s the preferred approach per their internal legal guidance. I don’t know if this guy is telling the full story or not, I can see potential aggravating factors, but on the surface it’s a lot more reasonable than you’re letting on
WheelsAtLarge 4mo ago
Google Workspace is but the CLI is not. These are 2 related but different products. Had he just released it under his name then that wouldn't have been such a big issue, maybe, but he used the Google logo which implied it was Google blessed. If I did the same thing, they would have a case for suing me. Just because you work for Google does not mean you can release products under their name. Google spends countless of man-hours to make sure whatever product they put out is as good as possible. And support it on any issues that are found along the way. All companies protect their logo to a high degree simply because of the implications it has when people see it.
- whstl 4mo ago
  It was not released under his name. It is in Google's own googleworkspace Github Organization, alongside 57 other similar projects that consume from the same API. The organization hosts repos shown here: https://developers.google.com/workspace/drive/api/samples https://developers.google.com/workspace/drive/api/samples > Google spends countless of man-hours to make sure whatever product they put out is as good as possible That's 100% not true for those kinds of projects. There's plenty of "not officially supported" projects in Google's Github.
  - nailer 4mo ago
    Not complaining about the downvoting but everything in this comment is verifiable from the links you provided.
    - whstl 4mo ago
      People are making a crazy amount of assumptions in those threads only to defend Google and dunk on someone who was just fired. The repo belongs to Google, the organization belongs to Google, the job of the fired dev was to produce code just like the one he was fired for, and there's 56 other repos with similar code in there, a lot of them using the same API.
      - saghm 4mo ago
        Yeah, it's pretty telling that comments like the one you replied to are all over this thread, and every time a response like yours is posted, no one seems to have any rebuttal. It's pretty clear that there's plenty of precedent for what this guy did and no legitimate reason to consider it a departure from what he and his coworkers had been doing for a while. If you only read a condensed summary of what happened, you might be able to come up with a narrative that fits those high-level details that makes the firing seem reasonable. That narrative has no basis in reality though, other than being the theoretically plausible justification they came up with for firing him.
        4mo ago

by nailer 4mo ago

magicalist 4mo ago

I mean, the GP is being overdramatic but releasing a vibe coded cli frontend for an official product in a google github org and that uses your google account credentials is a big deal no matter how unofficial you claim it is in the readme.

dnfmfnfnfb 4mo ago
This is extremely precedented. Google developer relations people do exactly that, all the time. Or at least they used to, all the folks I used to follow have left the company. You’ll find lots of open source projects in Google’s repositories which are just personal tools they built to scratch an itch, but are published under Google‘s name because that’s the preferred approach per their internal legal guidance. I don’t know if this guy is telling the full story or not, I can see potential aggravating factors, but on the surface it’s a lot more reasonable than you’re letting on

WheelsAtLarge 4mo ago

Google Workspace is but the CLI is not. These are 2 related but different products. Had he just released it under his name then that wouldn't have been such a big issue, maybe, but he used the Google logo which implied it was Google blessed. If I did the same thing, they would have a case for suing me. Just because you work for Google does not mean you can release products under their name. Google spends countless of man-hours to make sure whatever product they put out is as good as possible. And support it on any issues that are found along the way. All companies protect their logo to a high degree simply because of the implications it has when people see it.

whstl 4mo ago
It was not released under his name. It is in Google's own googleworkspace Github Organization, alongside 57 other similar projects that consume from the same API. The organization hosts repos shown here: https://developers.google.com/workspace/drive/api/samples https://developers.google.com/workspace/drive/api/samples > Google spends countless of man-hours to make sure whatever product they put out is as good as possible That's 100% not true for those kinds of projects. There's plenty of "not officially supported" projects in Google's Github.
- nailer 4mo ago
  Not complaining about the downvoting but everything in this comment is verifiable from the links you provided.
  - whstl 4mo ago
    People are making a crazy amount of assumptions in those threads only to defend Google and dunk on someone who was just fired. The repo belongs to Google, the organization belongs to Google, the job of the fired dev was to produce code just like the one he was fired for, and there's 56 other repos with similar code in there, a lot of them using the same API.
    - saghm 4mo ago
      Yeah, it's pretty telling that comments like the one you replied to are all over this thread, and every time a response like yours is posted, no one seems to have any rebuttal. It's pretty clear that there's plenty of precedent for what this guy did and no legitimate reason to consider it a departure from what he and his coworkers had been doing for a while. If you only read a condensed summary of what happened, you might be able to come up with a narrative that fits those high-level details that makes the firing seem reasonable. That narrative has no basis in reality though, other than being the theoretically plausible justification they came up with for firing him.
      - 4mo ago