I think you misunderstand. This is an HR matter, not an "Ethical AI" matter.

The official outputs and products of that department should (hopefully) be public and shared, I 100% agree with you. But that's not what this is about.

This matter in particular is an internal employee/employer dispute and dismissal, and is only public because of the high profile of the persons involved.

And what I meant that we'll never get the full story is that these kinds of situations are always more complicated than they appear. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and are not privy to the history that led to this moment.

These kinds of things don't just happen out of nowhere.

If I had to guess who's "more right" here, I'd side with Timnit, personally.. but again I don't have all the facts, so it's just a gut feeling based on what I know about how large enterprises work.

The point is to do foundational research, and to help Google ensure that its AI development complies with its own ethics. Google did try to set up an AI ethics board for accountability to the public, but it fell apart, because many segments of the public have ethical views which were seen as unacceptable. (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/04/google-cancels-controversial...)

If Exxon had a fracking safety department it's goal would be to help Exxon make fracking safer, not to call out Exxon for being an unsafe fracker.