[mseebach]

What about that article suggests that he has or hasn't changed? It seems to seeks to stir up outrage, that it's somehow sinister to expect that when you tell somebody something in confidence, they keep it confident - and if you don't, you get found and fired, because keeping confident things confident is a condition of employment, and not a terribly onerous one.

[tyingq]

S̶t̶a̶r̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶c̶h̶h̶u̶n̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶f̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶f̶i̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶s̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶k̶e̶d̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶o̶l̶d̶ ̶s̶h̶i̶t̶t̶y̶ ̶I̶M̶ ̶m̶e̶s̶s̶a̶g̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶e̶t̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶u̶l̶s̶i̶v̶e̶.̶ ̶ ̶ ̶W̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶e̶x̶a̶c̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ ̶I̶M̶ ̶m̶e̶s̶s̶a̶g̶e̶s̶ ̶w̶e̶r̶e̶.̶

Edit: What's above isn't quite right. There was a witchhunt, but unrelated to the leak of those old IM messages. Apologies. My point below, though, stands.

A mea culpa about the messages, and how you've changed personally in the meantime would have been a change.

[mseebach]

It wasn't anybody's "old shitty IM messages", it was details about a product under development. The IM messages has been out there since the very early days. The linked article references the "dumb fucks" IM messages exactly not at all.

And looking for (and finding) a specific person who has violated a specific, well-understood rule and sanctioning them is not exactly what a witch hunt is.

[tyingq]

Yep. I updated it long before you commented. Apologies for the miss there. Read it wrong.

[wallace_f]

>A mea culpa about the messages, and how you've changed personally in the meantime would have been a change.

The value of mea culpas is under-appreciated. We all make mistakes, and you can't change that in life. But you can change course after recognizing a mistake has been made.

I personally find that the worst people I have interacted with in life are also those who cannot assert a mea culpa.