[WheelsAtLarge]

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]

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

> 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]

Not complaining about the downvoting but everything in this comment is verifiable from the links you provided.

[whstl]

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]

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.

[frollogaston]

Here's the rebuttal, look through these https://github.com/orgs/googleworkspace/repositories , one is not like the others. They're things like Python samples or a Google Drive picker web element. The 56 other repos probably got properly approved and this one didn't. This one also got a Twitter announcement saying "Introducing the Google Workspace CLI..." at the same time Google was working on an official Google Workspace CLI.

It's also possible this is all wrong and the author followed all the rules. That wouldn't be because Google actually benefits from making up reasons to fire good employees, only cause someone on the inside was scapegoating or glory-hogging. Tbh I doubt it.

[whstl]

> one is not like the others

> probably got properly approved

> also possible

That's not a rebuttal of anything, that's just a series of wild assumptions.

[whstl]

Yeah, people are just going wild with assumptions.

Every story has three sides, or something like that?

...except when HR/Legal is involved, then it has quite a few more. Lots of secret narratives that are relayed differently to different people.