About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

Post by xapata » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 7:10 AM UTC

in_cahoots wrote: post #548

xapata wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeff's document says she submitted without asking for approval, so the request was to withdraw that unapproved submission. It is reasonable to interpret that as permission to revise and resubmit. She seems to have had her heart set on this particular conference and submission deadline.

That’s not what it says, though. It says her paper was approved, she submitted, and then a reviewer had a complaint. He seems to be deliberately vague here to make it seem as if she was acting without permission, but as I read it she had a vid reason to submit. This lines up with other people in the thread saying submitting hours before the deadline was risky, but common.

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 7:19 AM UTC

xapata wrote: post #573

KittenInABox wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just weird that I'm pretty sure that the reasons for the request to withdraw was for reasons of the scholarly quality of the work, not for corporate reasons like protecting corporate information, which from what I understand is the job of the reviewers of the conferences and not Google. Especially because other people who work in her department have gone on record saying that withdrawal requests purely due to pa…

> on record You mean spoke to journalists? Or gave a legal deposition?

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 7:35 AM UTC

in_cahoots wrote: post #548

xapata wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeff's document says she submitted without asking for approval, so the request was to withdraw that unapproved submission. It is reasonable to interpret that as permission to revise and resubmit. She seems to have had her heart set on this particular conference and submission deadline.

That’s not what it says, though. It says her paper was approved, she submitted, and then a reviewer had a complaint. He seems to be deliberately vague here to make it seem as if she was acting without permission, but as I read it she had a vid reason to submit. This lines up with other people in the thread saying submitting hours before the deadline was risky, but common.

Post by bb88 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 8:27 AM UTC

nickff wrote: post #410

tempest_ wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is sorta my entire point. The fact that this has over-flowed into the public sphere is a failure. If they handled the situation correctly it should have been sorted internally. Whether the person in question spilled the beans at all is proof of that. Managing people is a skill, and being good at computer science does not make you a good manager. They should know that complaining to social media is an option that…

You asserted: "a good manager would have handled this and it would never have reached this point, public or otherwise. This whole episode is failure of management top to bottom." My point is that I do not know whether this situation could have been handled better. We don't know enough to judge whether this could have been sorted out neatly. You seem to think that a clean resolution was possible, and you might be righ…

    1.  Anonymous feedback being given through HR about a 
        research paper in AI Ethics to be published in an 
        academic forum.

    2.  Manager schedules a meeting where: “it has been 
        decided that you need to retract this paper by next week..."
        without context and without a chance to confront others.

    3.  She puts an ultimatum to her boss that she can't  
        continue to work there with conditions like that limit her
        freedom to speak and research.  Google decides to accept 
        her resignation.

    A.  People can just go to HR with criticisms of a research paper 
        apparently with the intent to sabotage authors, and HR is 
        apparently fine with being used like this.  Or possibly a manager
        convinced HR that OKR's trump AI Ethics.

    B.  They wanted her to say certain things in an academic forum -- 
        which didn't appear to be IP/Trade Secret related, but for 
        some other reason, which they refused to disclose.  This is 
        in an environment of ethics where papers might become guidelines
        for legislation.
  
    C.  They're not interested in fixing the issues she brought up, 
        because they allowed #1 and #2 to happen above.

Post by that_guy_iain » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 10:53 AM UTC

KittenInABox wrote: post #510

dmix wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even Jeff Dean had to include: > I also feel badly that hundreds of you received an email just this week from Timnit telling you to stop work on critical DEI programs. Please don’t.

Honestly, if a black woman was saying that DEI isn't working at a company, I believe her more than I believe management. Even with a reputation for blowing up at people.