[beerandt]

It's not that he should or shouldn't have, it's that once you make that decision, certain consequences become likely.

I place it more on the author trying to paint a victim narrative, given the guys board resignation (he knew his fate), and the fact that the author directly benefitted from the decision that got him fired.

[pessimizer]

> It's not that he should or shouldn't have

> I place it more on the author trying to paint a victim narrative,

If he should have, he's a victim; if he shouldn't have, he's not. If you "place it more" on the author trying to paint a victim narrative, you're explicitly saying that it is about whether he should or shouldn't have, and that you think he shouldn't have.

[beerandt]

Absolutely not.

The author has an interest in making him a victim of Virgin Galactic, because if he's not, that makes him largely a victim of the author's published writings.

Separately, I'm saying that there's no universal truth to "should have" or "shouldn't have". It's a personal moral and ethical judgement call, and is complicated by differences in professional opinion. The author makes it seem like a clear A/B choice, and it's not.

Disobedience is more black and white, and requires pretty substantial justification.

Assessing risk can be one of the most difficult and contentious aspects of engineering. People are going to disagree.

This isn't a case of "safety at all costs". It's an inherently risky business and discipline. To some extent he is comfortable putting test pilots and others lives' at risk, because that's ultimately his job.

Barring some absolute smoking gun (ie violating written risk policies versus differences of professional opinions), I think he made a deliberate choice that precludes victim hood.