Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft CIO Stuart Scott Gets Axed
avjt writes "Microsoft has terminated its CIO Stuart Scott for 'violation of company policies'. They won't elaborate. Now what do you think this guy has done?" Ya know, I'm positive someone reading this story knows the answer to the mystery... and they could post it anonymously and be totally fine because there will be a hundred other totally wrong guesses and it would be completely impossible to distinguish the two ;)
Time to google for articles where he said something good about Linux...
Got fed up with Vista and installed $SOME_DISTRO instead. :-)
:-(
Somehow this is gonna cost me karma...
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Taco said in one of his write-ups, comments will (very rarely) be removed for legal reasons.
Whichever post dissapears after MS sends an email threatening legal action. That is the reason... Everyone, ready your screenshots!
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
When filling out a form, under the section that said 'DO NOT WRITE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE' he wrote 'OK'
He bought a Sony Playstation 3, then looked for help setting it up via Google on his Linux based computer.
balmer run out of chairs to toss! so he moved onto the management, which is a smart move they are thick as wood anyways
He was baggin' Belinda.
he deemed himself the "chief indecent officer", came to work naked, and refused to let anyone not notice his lack of clothes lolololol
Stuart L. Scott's middle name is Linus.
Usually, at levels this high, executives who misbehave are quietly asked to resign. The fact that his termination was this public and graceless tells me he did something pretty egregious, because Microsoft apparently wants to not just get rid of him but warn other corporations not to hire him. Misappropriation of corporate funds, in some way, seems the most likely candidate to me.
Please note I'm not informed at all, just speculating.
...often the reality is much simpler and mundane... What are you doing bringing reality into this? We're trying to film the nerd equivalent of 90210 here, and you barge in with your 'reality' like it actually means something!A test came back negative -- his body was NOT composed of pure evil, which of course violates MS company policy. Subsequent tests confirmed it, although he is appealing to the World Anti-Doping Agency. Floyd Landis was unavailable for comment.
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
I know several people who currently work at Microsoft. It's not because he installed linux or owns an ipod or some such silliness, since I know these people have done those things. I would imagine that it's actually something more serious, like an inappropriate work relationship (still thinking it's not something they would fire you for, at the CIO level) or divulging info to a competitor or inappropriate use of company funds.
Hey, I like how you just copied a post directly off the story site! That's the spirit of re-use in action.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
He told Clippy to, and I quote, "Get Bent".
Terminating him seems a bit harsh - couldn't they just have sacked him?
Pamela Jones!
Sean Ellis
Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.
Few people are ever fired for a breach of a minor rule in any corporation. Supposedly minor rules are usually only invoked if the breach is a cause of a wider problem. For example, an unproductive employee might be fired for visiting personal websites during working hours. The cause of the firing is that the employee isn't worth keeping because they (amongst other things) spend all day browsing the web and not working, not that the websites were not work related.
Remember, it kills morale and makes people want to leave if they're in fear of losing their jobs over something other than performance and/or disruptive behavior. It's also expensive - an employee of any worth takes months, sometimes years, to replace, and crucial information is inevitably lost whenever anyone leaves. While corporations suck at the whole morale thing, it's an exaggeration to assume that most people are fired over something "innocuous". Even if the reason given might appear that way, the fact is the corporation wouldn't be firing the person in the first place if there wasn't a good reason to get rid of them.
That said, the reason in this case could be as simple as Scott isn't worth anything close to waht he was being paid and was easily losable.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
... according to ValleyWag.
Microsoft basically paid for the new members in the Swedish OOXML vote and a subsidiary of Microsoft in Hungary was raided by the police in July. I have no knowledge that it is related to either of this, an out-right firing of such a high level person usually means basically stealing money. Not even a sexual harassment scandal would do that, just a quiet resignation.
- Only a few of us know the truth, posting the truth is a good way to violate company policies, and you see what happens when you violate company policies, so even anonymous posting just means pressure is applied to
... let's just say a few ... people until it is determined who the one is and BOOM, job over
- We don't like really like slashdotters that much, so we don't care if you never know the real reason
- The truth is not exciting or anything...it's just mundane policy violation...so posting it is less enjoyable than reading all the wild-ass guesses
- Halloween is over
I'll never tell. Even if I did, you'd be all "Meh" and say the idea that he was bangin' Melinda or selling Microsoft secret plans to Google is much more intriguing. So, sure, he was a Google mole. Just run with that one.Seriously...who has SEVEN CHILDREN? On PURPOSE?
Mormons... The correct answer is Mormons.
Seriously...who has SEVEN CHILDREN? On PURPOSE?
My mom.
Really, no joke. I'm the 6th of 7. Not saying she isn't insane, just saying some people want lots of kids.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
The rumor mill is already gushing about the story: turns out Scott had an affair with one of his subordinates, who recently go a big promotion that raised many eye brows around the company. The two were on leave together when the investigation started: http://www.pollsb.com/polls/poll/3617/microsoft-fires-cio-stuart-scott-possibly-for-inter-office-affair-with-his-subordinate
The poor guy is unemployed and has seven (that we know about so far) children to support.
... like, say, sell one of their yachts ... but this isn't $JOE_DOWNSIZED_TECH_WORKER we're talking about.
The "poor guy" was a top executive for one of the biggest corporations in the world. I can pretty much guarantee you that he and his litter o' puppies aren't going to be out on the street any time soon. They may have to scale down their lifestyle a bit
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
The real reason for this should be immediately obvious to anyone as schooled in espionage as I am.
A common gambit for agencies wishing to implant a mole into a rival agency is to first of all establish their lack of attachment for the potential mole, common techniques for this are high profile embarrasing sackings or similar. Just as we see here.
Don't be surprised to see this guy revert to the life of an itinerant alcoholic for a while telling the world about how he made it big with one of the top dogs in the software industry and how he could have been great if the bastards hadn't dragged him down like that and how he'd do anything for revenge.
The aim obviously is for him to be hired by Red Hat or someone similar where he can then work from within to destroy them.
It's all obvious for those looking at the right signs.
One went to wrong place and they are five
One learned to fly a plane (almost) and they are four
One was a brave astronaut until shuttle crashed
One slept with wrong wife and they are two
One used wrong crack and there is only one
Last boy is a nerd. End of your genealogy tree.
There's your answer - he pushed them to use Vista internally.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Says here 'Scott was charged with the distribution of Microsoft products among employees.'
So, was he bootlegging Halo betas?
I cant see them firing him for giving out copies of Vista.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/microsoft-executive-fired-violating-company/story.aspx?guid=%7B3C9D5FC9-8119-4559-93AE-8FA7ED975002%7D&dist=hplatest
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
When a business wants to hide the wrong-doing of an executive, they buy them out and everyone keeps their mouth shut. One publicly terminates an executive when one wants to send a public message. Often the message is that the business is responsive to a situation. So if the executive is harassing someone, or committing a crime, the business can try to limit its liability by showing that it took all possible steps to remedy the situation.
Also, at the executive level, ticky-tack reasons for firing someone aren't really applicable. If the CEO doesn't like the CIO, he just cans him and brings in his own guy. This can be a kind of message too...fire a rival and consolidate power. And if that turns in an employment lawsuit, a little gift violation is not going to stand up in court.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Well, that's what ValleyWag says he was doing...
rj
Mark who?