[smcgivern]

Perhaps you could clarify what you think:

> exactly what you would expect when you're intentionally stirring shit up at any company

is?

From this reply, it appears that you think Google did nothing wrong - regardless of whether she was 'stirring shit up' or not.

[deadmik3]

I don't think they did do anything wrong against her. She didn't get her peer bonuses for starting this spreadsheet?

[smcgivern]

So what you expect for 'stirring shit up' is that nothing bad happens to you? If you think that, then the top post of this thread was weirdly inflammatory.

[woah]

You don't think they retaliated, or you don't think that it would be wrong for them to retaliate?

[Merovius]

I personally don't believe that not rewarding an action counts as "retaliation" for said action. I also believe, based on Xooglers commenting, that there might have been very good reasons to reject the peer bonuses (no, that was not the only case, in which peer bonuses got rejected, it's not that unheard of...).

(And I personally think, peer bonuses should be rejected in such cases Because otherwise it becomes a pure popularity-contest. But that's just, like, my opinion :) )