Can an open-source backer thrive inside Microsoft? This one says no
Summary: People join and leave Microsoft every day. One open-source backer who is leaving Microsoft after a three-year stint there provides his take on why Microsoft wasn't a good fit for him.
In 2008, Microsoft hired Hamilton “Hammett” Verissimo, the founder of the open-source Castle Project, as a program manager on the Microsoft Extensibility Framework (MEF) team in the company's Developer Division. On May 17, 2011, Verissimo quit Microsoft.
People join and leave Microsoft every day. (In fact, the last of the original Xbox founders submitted his resignation from Microsoft this week.) But I was interested in hearing from Verissimo whether it was a conflict in open/closed source philosophies that led to his decision to go. It turns out many of his frustrations are similar to ones I've heard shared by those leaving Microsoft whether or not they were in the open-source camp.
I realize every story has two sides. For what it's worth, here's Verissimo's side of his tale about his three years in Redmond. I submitted questions to him via e-mail and he returned with his answers. I edited out a bit of the personal health-related information Verissimo included; otherwise, this Q&A is verbatim.
MJF: What are your reasons for leaving Microsoft?
HV: (Reasons) aplenty. First, it never felt they were making good use of my skills and potential. Instead, I had to develop skills to traverse a sea of politics. It's a very inefficient company, with very little or nothing being done to make it better. MS has small windows of actual product development (new code being written) followed by long period of stabilization. It's waterfall as its best. For PMs, like me, some manager pushes idiot time consuming exercises like scenario validation.. two months to produce collateral that is bound to be useless in six months, since everything is likely to change.
Secondly, the "toxic environment" and its impact on MS' products. Since MS has a performance review system that values "individual" contributions over team work, everybody want to make impact on everything. Another way to read it is that everybody wants to voice opinions and suggestions and drive them to execution, which commonly lead to mutually exclusive ideas, and you, as a PM, will have to figure out a way to make everyone happy if you want to make progress. That leads to dysfunctional products. As a matter of fact, I remember the template I *had* to use to set my commitments/deliverables had something like "you go to spec review meetings and make valuable comments"
One thing that really frustrated me was that those random suggestions come from intuition, instead of actual scenarios/facts/data, and commonly show how disconnected MS employees are from the real world. In my case, as I worked in the developer division, it demonstrated how people there were disconnected from how developers work, and what they value. I had to constantly remind them that we should strive for simplicity since developers don't have the time to become expert on our product, since it would be another tool in their toolbox.
Finally, there are the managers. I don't know how much time people spend reading Mini Microsoft, and specially the comments there. It was actually therapeutic to me. Finding out that what was happening (via Mini) is quite common.
MJF: Does this decision have any impact on Castle?
HV: Only positive, since now I have more time to spend with it.
MJF: What's your opinion on how Microsoft's interaction with the open-source community is/isn't changing?
HV: The internal (Microsoft) culture is about competition, which is unfortunate. MS never ceases to release projects and products with similar (or equal) open source counterparts. And they do so in the name of "our customers are demanding it" which is probably true.
What they don't realize is that this action undermines the very ecosystem they should foster around their platform. Startups for example hardly chooses MS platform given that the perception is that there isn't a strong open source community around it.
MJF: What could have made you decide to stay at MS (if anything)?
HV: A big change of chairs at the top would be encouraging. Starting with (CEO Steve) Ballmer, but not excluding (Senior Vice President of Human Resources) Lisa Brummel.
MJF: What are you going to be doing next?
HV: I'm moving back to Vancouver, BC. Will stay closer to my son and work for a local company there as framework architect.
MJF: Does your departure from MS affect any projects in MEF or other parts of the company? Will anyone be replacing you there?
HV: I assume someone will replace me, but haven't heard who. I assume they are trying hard to hire a bunch of new PMs, since three have left the CoreFx team (a team inside the Common Language Runtime, CLR, team) recently, including myself.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Not the least surprised
Message has been deleted.
He was specific about what argument he was "shutting down"
Yes, but....
...its the dumbest thing he could say! Saying a companies current and past performance and profitability isn't relevant to the future is beyond ludicrous. I suspect he was trying to point out that different things can happen in the future that could interfere with a companies track record...fair enough but thats obvious and without some even slight indication of what that change would be, its pointless to say any particular successful company is going down because things can change.
He says Microsoft will not be able to compete in a fast moving nimble mobile world, where they do not have an entrenched dominant legacy position. Says he. And who is he? Clearly someone who thinks that phones are going to rule the world. I myself am betting not. Again so what. Neither of us have any hard facts to prove our position and as such predicting the downfall of one of the largest most successful corporations in the world based on unsupported personal opinion is hardly worth making the effort to write it.
Don't suggest that the long term profitability of a company is not a good indicator of future prospects. It is unless there is some other REAL facts that indicate something new that is bound to have a new and negative impact. There is nothing like that right now, and no genuine sign that it may somehow be on the horizon.
For Economister to say that all the money MS has made in the past doesn't matter is just nonsense. It does matter. A lot.
Say what you will @Cabyle, but...
Notice I said "less relevant". Not entirely disappear. I don't always deal in absolutes like you do
Ive been pointing out the same for years
No apologies here. I think its too bad myself.
But in the long run, what does all that mean or indicate? Nothing I suspect. Its just business as usual in Big Corporate America, and will probably continue along that way just fine if we like it or not.
Hindsight is such a wonderful ability to have
it allows one to comment on things already known as to make one believe they had said that all along.
Spock, that's Hindsight bias
Then we look at your posts...
Typical nonsense.
I guess then its the same reasons why Apple will eventually go under because unlike the Apple apologists, I don't simply believe everything negative about MS and give Apple a pass on the exact same crap.
Its been established for quite awhile now that there are some practices at many firms, Apple included that create oppressive conditions and the reality is whats good for the goose is good for the gander. The bottom line is that Microsoft is so so far from going under you might just as well predict the demise of any company, no matter how successful they are.
Do I believe what this Verissimo is saying? I suspect its at least mostly true. So what. Its going to take a lot more then this nonsense to make a company like MS go under. If you worked in fast food you could say the exact same thing about McDonald's, in retail you could talk about Walmart and the list goes on.
Unfortunately, history has shown that a company that is hugely successful as Microsoft is often has many policies and ways of doing things that rub all sorts of employees the wrong way and for good reason. History has also shown that it never amounts to anything like enough on its own to put a company under.
Wake up and stop wishful dreaming.
A little bit of critical reading and thinking.
Going under?
RE: Can an open-source backer thrive inside Microsoft? This one says no
Fat vs. fittest = fat wins
RE: Can an open-source backer thrive inside Microsoft? This one says no
Windows has essentially become a commodity. While I don't see them being threatened anytime soon on the enterprise server side of the house, certainly in the mobile and desktop/laptop/table/phone arenas there are other WORTHY alternatives out there.
Case and Point. For the first time since the early 90s, I am finally running a non Microsoft OS (Ubuntu 11.04) and since May 1st of this year, I have had NO reason to boot up my Windows 7 PC. I am seriously considering putting Ubuntu (only) on that one as well this weekend.
On outsting Ballmer
Rudder
RE: Can an open-source backer thrive inside Microsoft? This one says no
I do ask about Rudder taking over because it seemed like he was commonly referred to as "heir" in the past. For example, this 6 year old NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/technology/25soft.html?ei=5090&en=1772bfb57bd96695&ex=1274673600&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1117026268-k7+Uj7i3wp3NDhr0nOowFw
But Rudder moved to run Midori and then rarely a peep about him anymore. Just given all of the management shuffling they've had, it's odd that we've heard nothing about arguably their most highly regarded lieutenant.
RE: Can an open-source backer thrive inside Microsoft? This one says no
Apart from Sinofsky whose rise is considered inevitable, there are rising stars like Satya Nadella. But real hope is heroes like ScottGu who really get it (yeah, Hammett was hired in his org in the first place). Of course, Scott is a mere VP while there are lots of SVPs and presidents running their own mini-empires and fighting turf wars.
FOSS has no business model
So of course it does not fit in a for-profit org like MSFT.