IBM Clarifies Stance On Developers Working On Open-Source Projects In Off-Hours

[sabian2008]

Well, that's tedious and takes time. Nobody wants to be switching between accounts just to make a contribution in non-work time.

I'm not even a developer, but it is extremely easy choosing under what name you make a commit in git. Even more, if you are using a remote origin like Github or Gitlab you can make the appropriate push too if each account has it's SSH key.

[discordian]

Well, that's tedious and takes time. Nobody wants to be switching between accounts just to make a contribution in non-work time.
If the contribution is useful, why does that even matter?

Not really difficult, just use separate directories with different .git configs.
big companies often have a ton of legalese tied to their name, so I'd guess some overzealous compliance manager had a bad coffee.

[coder]

I dont think he was ever prevented from contributing. He was told to use his IBM ID when contributing.

Well, that's tedious and takes time. Nobody wants to be switching between accounts just to make a contribution in non-work time.
If the contribution is useful, why does that even matter?

Please read the actual quote from the manager. It's not long, and Michael kindly repeated it so you didn't even have to refer back to the previous article!

"Please remove yourself completely from the maintainers file. I grant you a 1 time exception on contributions to VNIC to make this change."

The manager did not say to "switch back to your IBM address", he said completely. And the whole point about a "one time exception" makes it clear just how literal they are being.

Moreover, in the previous thread, someone noticed that the employee had used their IBM address in that maintainers file until a couple days prior to this incident, when they switched it to their personal address. That strongly suggests that there was some internal dispute which the employee tried to work around by putting on their personal hat. This is further supported by IBM's statement:

"This was a one off disagreement that should not have gone public as there are internal guidelines to resolve it."

[coder]

Translation: We weren't supposed to see how IBM'ers really talk to each other behind the curtain

There was clearly some sort of internal dispute. The manager's tone and approach seems problematic, but we don't have all the facts and therefore really can't say who was right about the employee's contributions.

[coder]

I never call for people to be fired or punished for something they said online or in an email. Cancel culture is pretty much the height of degraded woke stupidity in my view.

Emails have consequences, though. "Never" is a strong word. If it was an unguarded or misjudged remark, that's one thing. However, if what is being said truly reflects a more serious conflict of interests or wrongdoing, then that's a different story.

My opinion is that people deserve some slack for doing or saying something that simply looks bad. If that's all it is, and it's not an ongoing problem, then they should be supported and not thrown under the bus.

[coder]

I think the explanation of the behaviour as "we track your commits by the work email/ID so it can count towards the employee program" is garbage. Is it really so hard to add another ID?

Name: John Smith
ID1: john.smith@blahblah-company
ID2: johnnymagee69@personal-email

Uh, that's exactly what they said they do:

"Often our contributors will have a personal GitHub ID and an IBM GitHub ID. We use tooling to track contributions under both IDs to ensure everyone gets credit towards our recognition program."

As some have already noted, this isn't necessarily a good thing.

I'd rather operate under a policy where official duties should use your IBM account and personal activities should use a non-IBM account. That would make it much clearer whether you intend something to be work-related or not. And if it's not work-related then (IMO) the company has no business tracking me!

[coder]

Eh, that's just a PR statement. If they didn't want to be embarassed, they should have reigned in that manager's power trip. Most likely they'll blame the employee for it, instead of accepting their fault in the matter.

If I had to guess, I'd say you're probably right. Fortunately, I don't have to guess.

It's likely that they reprimanded the employee for publishing that internal communication, but it's quite plausible they also dinged the manager for failing to utilize more effective dispute resolution tactics. Whatever happened behind the scenes, they both had a role in this bad PR for the company.

Although companies tend to side with managers, some also realize that the most effective managers aren't always the most rigid and authoritarian.

[lyamc]

Uh, that's exactly what they said they do:

"Often our contributors will have a personal GitHub ID and an IBM GitHub ID. We use tooling to track contributions under both IDs to ensure everyone gets credit towards our recognition program."

Precisely why that particular argument is garbage. There’s no reason for that type of policy (no personal emails) or response (you have 1 exception) from IBM in the first place.

[coder]

Precisely why that particular argument is garbage. There’s no reason for that type of policy (no personal emails) or response (you have 1 exception) from IBM in the first place.

I suspect that part of the manager's quote was probably in response to the employee claiming that they are taking some contentious action in a personal capacity. The switching of email addresses was merely done to try and formalize that fact.

The manager was rightly pointing out that you can't do things contrary to the company's interests, just because you claim it's on your personal time.

[jason.oliveira]

so let's see if this is accurate:
1) IBM kernel contributor is removed from IBM because there was an intellectual property ownership issue due to the method(s) of communication and contribution.
2) IBM is then sued for wrongful termination, and even potentially an IP claim on the work he did at IBM.
3) IBM will pay this guy out a settlement, but they're going to make sure this never happens again, and updates their contribution policy to prevent this from ever happen again.

I bet it is.