Source: Google Translate
That's not cheating, right?
Sounds to me like they don't care about crime
'Saturday night special' is what came to mind for me too. Is it only law enforcement that concerns themselves with gun crime, while the ATF is tasked with issues regarding the guns themselves?
SendGrid simply read Blum's email as past behavior and fired Richards rather than taking Blum's constructive advice.
I did appreciate Amanda Blum's take on this -- it was clear, almost wholly fact-oriented, and very informative.
Something like that owning up to her behavior, followed by a credible explanation that she changed as a result of the experience, and that her behavior was not to be interpreted as reflective of the company's values. Then followed by how she plans to make amends.
You're right about her mistake being public, so publicly trying to fix it seems an obvious option.
What we do not support was how she reported the conduct.
And then gun the engine?
In the end, the consequences that resulted from how she reported the conduct put our business in danger. Our commitment to our 130 employees, their families, our community members and our more than 130,000 valued customers is our primary concern.
Maybe I don't understand how company policies are written, but this sounds like public advertisement of a private company decision. Even accepting that these would be the facts, I assumed that in many cases, people are given the option to leave with something noncommittal like, 'mutual parting of the ways'.
But broadcasting to the public that:
- Sendgrid is positively stating a lack of support for her actions,
- her own actions make her ineffective at her chosen job,
- she acts in a way whose consequences can put a business in danger
is unusually specific and, particularly with the last item, nothing short of damning. This comes from the CEO, too.
The tech/geek realm is primarily male to the point it is virtually male.
Funny you should say that, as one of the keynotes mentioned that Pycon 2013 was 20% women (attendees?).
... you're choosing to make your [x] suboptimal.
When there's a clearly described and readily available more-optimal alternative, that alone could be a sufficient nerd reason to at least learn the underlying principles behind [x], for any [x].