3 ms·

Read your article: "we will not comment on all the factors that contributed to our parting ways." I still suspect this was a firing for many reasons, not just

by niggler 14y ago

Read your article: "we will not comment on all the factors that contributed to our parting ways." I still suspect this was a firing for many reasons, not just this incident.

MBlume 14y ago
If they didn't essentially fire him for making a dongle joke, they'd probably have tried harder to make that clear in the announcement
- niggler 14y ago
  You have to walk a fine line as an employer -- you don't want to be sued for wrongful termination.
masklinn 14y ago
> Read your article: I've read it several times, just in case the text changed between my visits > I still suspect this was a firing for many reasons, not just this incident. And yet the post provides no information whatsoever and crucially does not come close to hinting that this was not the reason, you'd think. There may have been other reasons, but the timing is odd, why wait until he gets involved in something at PyCon? And even if it happened to be the straw breaking the camel's back it's not like they had to fire him on the spot. Unless they wanted to milk some views, after all some say no publicity is bad publicity.
- niggler 14y ago
  "just in case the text changed between my visits" I've seen that happen before, so I apologize for my insinuation if the quote was added between your reading and mine. "the post provides no information whatsoever and crucially does not at any point indicate this was not the reason" You can't assume that the firing was 100% due to the issue at hand, and I'm saying that I don't think it was 100%. Other people seem to be acting as if that's the only reason he was let go.
  - masklinn 14y ago
    > You can't assume that the firing was 100% due to the issue at hand Of course not (especially as his colleague was not fired) but in a blog post purporting to "provide some clarity" on "a number of inaccuracies being reported", considering the basic assumption that he was fired for it, you'd think that would be part of the clarity. Instead the post weasels around with no specifics whatsoever, declaring "a thorough investigation" (of a few hours) but that not "all the factors" would be commented on (none whatsoever were commented on). They've also refused to publish (let alone respond) to a single comment so far.

by niggler 14y ago

Read your article: "we will not comment on all the factors that contributed to our parting ways." I still suspect this was a firing for many reasons, not just this incident.

MBlume 14y ago

If they didn't essentially fire him for making a dongle joke, they'd probably have tried harder to make that clear in the announcement

niggler 14y ago
You have to walk a fine line as an employer -- you don't want to be sued for wrongful termination.

masklinn 14y ago

> Read your article: I've read it several times, just in case the text changed between my visits > I still suspect this was a firing for many reasons, not just this incident. And yet the post provides no information whatsoever and crucially does not come close to hinting that this was not the reason, you'd think. There may have been other reasons, but the timing is odd, why wait until he gets involved in something at PyCon? And even if it happened to be the straw breaking the camel's back it's not like they had to fire him on the spot. Unless they wanted to milk some views, after all some say no publicity is bad publicity.

niggler 14y ago
"just in case the text changed between my visits" I've seen that happen before, so I apologize for my insinuation if the quote was added between your reading and mine. "the post provides no information whatsoever and crucially does not at any point indicate this was not the reason" You can't assume that the firing was 100% due to the issue at hand, and I'm saying that I don't think it was 100%. Other people seem to be acting as if that's the only reason he was let go.
- masklinn 14y ago
  > You can't assume that the firing was 100% due to the issue at hand Of course not (especially as his colleague was not fired) but in a blog post purporting to "provide some clarity" on "a number of inaccuracies being reported", considering the basic assumption that he was fired for it, you'd think that would be part of the clarity. Instead the post weasels around with no specifics whatsoever, declaring "a thorough investigation" (of a few hours) but that not "all the factors" would be commented on (none whatsoever were commented on). They've also refused to publish (let alone respond) to a single comment so far.