She said, "If you can't meet these conditions, I will resign effective <XY date>." Google said, "We can't meet these conditions, we accept your resignation and move it to <much earlier date>."

No, she didn't say that.

She said she may set a date in the future for her resignation.

That is non-committal and non-specific. Your characterization is inaccurate.

People will have to find the source document, which to the best of my knowledge is not public (note, not the message to Women and Allies), read it, and then reach their own conclusions.

I stand by my characterization. She characterizes it herself thusly:

"I said here are the conditions. If you can meet them great I’ll take my name off this paper, if not then I can work on a last date."

https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334341991795142667

I think this is a major source of confusion in this whole conversation. There is clearly a follow up conversation between Timnit and some manager(s) (the name Megan is mentioned) in which this ultimatum was proffered.

That's not clear to me, nor apparently to most people who are interpreting this situation.

> I can work on a last date

...is both non-committal and non-specific. What are you seeing that everyone else is not?

> No, she didn't say that.

Citation needed. Gebru could publish it — she's not exactly silent — but chooses not to.

It's perfectly reasonable to think that someone hiding something has something to hide.

There is obviously a legal minefield here already. I think it is disingenuous to put that burden of proof on her at this stage.