Isn't the definition of "ultimatum" that no further compromise is possible? You can try or offer different alternatives, but if the other person is really at the ultimatum stage then you've both already lost.

> Isn't the definition of "ultimatum" that no further compromise is possible?

Given that, at least in Timnit's narrative, the email included a request to discuss the issue in person when she returned from vacation, I don't think that the "ultimatum" characterization is uncontroversially accurate for the immediate case.

I'm responding narrowly to the subthread here, which is about firing someone who gives an ultimatum in the abstract. I don't know enough about the specifics of Timnit/Google's situation to pass judgment. (I'm also an employee there, so doing so would be unwise and a potential violation of confidentiality rules if I did know anything.) To me I'm filing it under "Everybody sees through their emotions, and different people will have different perceptions of what actually happened and what people actually intended."

Your point seems to be that not willing to compromise on a specific point means the employee is lost forever.

There’s tons of issues I wouldn’t compromise on, and better leave the company if I had to. Does that mean I’ll be fired the very second these subjects become remotely relevant and/if I make clear where my boundaries are ?

If someone wants to negotiate, they don't use an ultimatum.

I understand your sentiment, but in my experience ultimatums are a common negotiation tactic and are rarely "true" ultimatums.

"X is the lowest price I can sell for, take it or leave it" "How about X-10?" "Done"

"I want to read 5 books!" "You can either read one book before bedtime or go to bed now" "How about 2 books?" "Okay, but then straight to bed!"

Well there are a few factors which make this situation different. If the ultimatum had been made in person, I'd think there might be room for negotiation, depending on the relationship between manager and subordinate.

Putting the ultimatum in e-mail form really raises the stakes, because there may be other people CC-ed or BCC-ed, and any response could later be weaponized.

If the relationship was already troubled, anything like an ultimatum is an opportunity for the manager to be rid of all their troubles.

The level of the threat also comes into play, and more severe threats increase the risk/tension. If the guardian had threatened to disown the child rather than send them to bed, we would read the situation differently.

I agree. An ultimatum given in an e-mail is more difficult to treat as a negotiation tactic, and it seems like there is much more to this story than we will ever know.

They way this was handled doesn't make any of the involved parties look good.

If someone is using an ultimatum, they don't request an in-person discussion.

The narratives from the participants on the actual communication differ on key points relevant to evaluating whether it was really an ultimatum.

Her description, quoted from a Wired article which she has re-tweeted (which I interpret as an endorsement) is as follows:

"Tuesday Gebru emailed back offering a deal: If she received a full explanation of what happened, and the research team met with management to agree on a process for fair handling of future research, she would remove her name from the paper. If not, she would arrange to depart the company at a later date, leaving her free to publish the paper without the company’s affiliation."

I read that as an explicit ultimatum.

https://www.wired.com/story/prominent-ai-ethics-researcher-s...

It's also not a static one-period game. You can ask them to reconsider.