4 ms·
So she was actually fired because of the DDoS: “In the end, the consequences that resulted from how she reported the conduct put our business in danger. Our com
by arrrg 14y ago
So she was actually fired because of the DDoS: “In the end, the consequences that resulted from how she reported the conduct put our business in danger. Our commitment to our 130 employees, their families, our community members and our more than 130,000 valued customers is our primary concern.”
Firing someone because of the criminal activity of someone else seems very weird.
At least he is opening himself up to that interpretation. Maybe the “consequences” are just disgruntled customers deciding to take their business elsewhere or the loss in trust in her, resulting in a reduced ability of her to do her job effectively, but in that context also talking about the “130,000 valued customers” is very weird. I can only assume that he was at least also referring to the DDoS when talking about the consequences.
To me it’s pretty clear that if the DDoS played any role in their decision, then it’s at least partly based on immoral cowardice.
- midge1b 14y agoNo, she was fired because "she can no longer be effective in her role at SendGrid". Which makes sense, considering her role was to strengthen developer relations...
- arrrg 14y agoI do not disagree with you that the statement also named that as a reason for firing her. All I’m saying that if the DDoS played any part in their decision to fire her, then that part of the justification for their decision represents immoral cowardice to me.
- Yver 14y agonamed that? Which part? I think you're perceiving things that are not there.
- arrrg 14y agoI quoted the segment where I think the statement makes reference to the DDoS. It is open to interpretation, but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable interpretation.
- alan_cx 14y agoThe bit you quoted makes no reference to the DDoS. You decided that the quoted text implied that. You then talk about interpretation, having claimed a specific reference that doesn't exist.
- alan_cx 14y agoThe bit you quoted makes no reference to the DDoS. You decided that the quoted text implied that. You then talk about interpretation, having claimed a specific reference that doesn't exist. You can't have it both ways.