Father of Wiki Quits MS, Moves to Eclipse

linumax writes "Microsoft has lost one of its high-profile hires to an open-source consortium. Mike Milinkovich, executive director of the Eclipse Foundation, announced on Monday that Ward Cunningham is leaving Microsoft to join the staff of the open-source tool consortium. Cunningham's new title is Director of Committer Community Development.Cunningham, the father of the Wiki concept, joined Microsoft about two years ago. At Microsoft, he was not involved directly in social-networking-software development. Instead, Cunningham worked as an architect with the company's Patterns & Practices Team."

Comments

About time

[Sheepdot]

With all these individuals leaving Microsoft for open source or other commercial ventures, does anyone suspect maybe there is about to be a shareholder shakeup of upper-level management? It would appear to me that Microsoft has gotten far too rigid, top-heavy, and doesn't provide autonomy at the development level anymore. Anyone else get the same idea based on the staff that are leaving?

Re:About time

[jtwJGuevara]

I don't forsee current shareholders giving a flying hoot about individuals leaving as long as the bottom line numbers remain prosperous... and you know as well as I that with all the successful product lines and forced upgrades, the bottom line isn't going to turn south anytime in the interim future.

In fact, MS shareholders should be happier than ever since they just recently received a whopping dividend payment.

Of course, as an individual investor, I wouldn't buy Microsoft for a long term investment for the very reasons you stated. Its potential for growth isn't attractive any longer either.

Re:About time

[Sheepdot]

I suspect that there are more "former Microsoft employees" than there are "current Microsoft employees."

But isn't that the breaking point then?

Think of it like this. Microsoft has, for two decades now, shown itself as the bright younge upstart. But the truth is they are coming to maturity now. They aren't "cool" anymore. iPods are "cool". Facebook is "cool". Google is "cool". Microsoft is like the youngest uncle at the family renions, too young to know that he's too old to be hanging out with the kids anymore.

IMHO we're likely to see Ballmer have a heart attack or other adverse health issue during a promotional gig (don't laugh, remember how he required vocal chord surgery after yelling Windows?) and shareholders will ask him to step down for safety concerns. His problem is that he doesn't realize what Microsoft is. IBM didn't realize who it was till Lou Gerstner defined it.

Re:About time

[pete6677]

I suspect there hasn't been much autonomy among developers for a long time. Look at how most of Microsoft product are designed. It's clear that the marketing department makes all product decision and engineers just get to figure out how to meet their demands. For example, why does Outlook inform me it is dangerous to display "active content"? What the hell is active content? In my case, it was apparently a font that someone used. Would any technical person use such a stupid, generic, meaningless phrase as "active content"?

Re:About time

[TheWanderingHermit]

The more I think about it, the more I wonder. While I stick by my other response, I think many people buying MS stock are doing so (or did so) on advice from a broker or because it was "the thing" to do. While it is not true in every case, in many cases, you're talking about sheep following a trend. There are probably a good number of stock holders who aren't thinking long term. I'm sure many bailed when it stopped going up. Now there are those who will see only the dividend and focus just on that -- not on growth or anything else. So, while my feelings on dividends haven't changed, my thoughts about how nearsighted the vision and how shallow the understanding of most investers is remind me that many don't make decisions on investing by thinking it through thoroughly.

Re:About time

[rho]

It used to be that dividends were the norm. Then came the awful idea that "if the company doesn't know what to do with its profits, there must be something wrong with them". This was the idea that fueled stock options and an incessant drumbeat to keep those quarterly reports positive and upbeat.

When a company pays out profits to shareholders, then the stock is acting in a "classical" stock sense. The company is then working for its shareholders. When a company doesn't pay dividends, and the whole value of the company to the shareholder is whether the stock will rise in value, then you get into dangerous territory where stock manipulation is a key skill, rather than business acumen and "knowing thy customer".

As for taxing dividends, IIRC, the nasty Republicans want to cut the dividends tax to zero. That encourages companies to offer dividends. That encourages investors to look at companies that pay dividends. All of the above encourages business practices that are less stock market oriented and more investor oriented. That is, it's a Good Thing. Now you're investing in a company because it produces a product that sells well, instead of investing in a company because you think you can fool somebody else into buying from you at a higher price.

There's room for the latter in a modern market, but the former is much less fraught with criminal or unethical doings.

Tool?

[rylin]

So instead of being a MS tool, he'll be an open-source tool?
What's the definition of an open-source tool? One who'll always use open-source software, even when there's proprietary software more suited for the job?

Help me out here!

Re:Tool?

[Just Some Guy]

One who'll always use open-source software, even when there's proprietary software more suited for the job?

I'll bite. Any software that makes my company's existence depend on the whims of an outside party is unsuitable for the job.

In my opinion, you have it backwards. An MS tool is one who believes Microsoft will always act in their best interest and stakes their financial future on it.

Oh dear!

[oneandoneis2]

How are Microsoft going to be able to tell people "There's no money in Open Source" if their best & brightest keep getting lured away by companies based on it? :o)

Re:What about Gates?

[TheRaven64]

I'm surprised it isn't common practice to defer management bonuses by around five years, and base them on the stock price at the time they are paid. This would encourage CEOs to ensure that the company was around and profitable five years after they quit, and not reward people who come in, run a company into the ground, and cash out.

Re:Wikipedia

[frank_adrian314159]

What was he doing there anyway?

What most of us do every day... Trading his time and effort for a pay check.