I don't have any scientific proof of this, but it strikes me that open-source CEOs are different. Not just because some sport ponytails (Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz), or some speak with a light Southern drawl (Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst), or even that some swear in Italian (Funambol CEO Fabrizio Capobianco).
No, what really makes them different, at least as compared to their enterprise software counterparts, is their cutting-edge adoption of technology.
In this they're no different (and probably a bit behind) the Web 2.0 crowd, but compared to an HP, IBM, or SAP CEO, the CEOs of open-source companies set new standards for connectedness and communication transparency. Perhaps it's the relative youth of open-source CEOs, but perhaps it's also a love of technology that stems from having to live so close to source code in an open-source company.
I first thought of this when I received notice that Whitehurst is following me on Twitter. I can't imagine Steve Ballmer following anyone on Twitter. Then I thought to how actively Schwartz blogs, providing useful information on Sun and its place in the larger enterprise computing ecosystem.
It also reminded me that I get text messages as often as emails from Whitehurst, and the same used to be true of Marten Mickos, former CEO of MySQL, as well as others (except Capobianco at Funambol, because his company does email sync, so he's not a big SMS user :-).
Enterprises should take note. I think company leadership has a material impact on the kind of technology that gets created within a technology vendor. If your vendor's CEO is stuck in the Stone Ages of technology, perhaps its products are, too?
This can only be taken so far, of course, but I wonder if there's something to it....
Update at 9:12 a.m. PST: Editors note about the Dan Lyons' vanishing blog has been added.
Update at 10:20 a.m. PST: See below for image with full text of Lyons' blog.
Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang is stepping down. My question: why did this take so !%!%!% long?
In Yang's letter to employees, he suggests that he's had an "ongoing dialogue with the board about succession timing." Yet surely the timing was right a year ago, and not necessarily now when Yang and the Yahoo board's intransigence in the face of Microsoft's offer and too-hopeful attempts to buddy up with Google have left the company in a shambles, with no suitors, a miserable stock price, and a bleak future.
Dan Lyons gets it right when he calls "foul" on the entire process in his blog:
Chairman Roy Bostock says it's the right time for this to happen. I only wish you could have been on the phone for my conversation just--what--a month ago, when the same Roy Bostock swore up and down to me that Jerry Yang wasn't going anywhere because he was absolutely the greatest leader the world has ever known. "Nobody knows this company better than Jerry Yang," said Roy. "Jerry is the right person to continue to lead Yahoo."...
The takeaway [from this and other misguided optimism about the Microsoft and Google deals]: Do not believe a word that Yahoo says. Ever.
(Editors note: Lyons' blog is suddenly unavailable on the Web. Valleywag, however, posted the entry in full on Monday night with a prediction that it might be taken down. Lyons is a technology columnist for Newsweek. Also, there is an image with the full text of the blog below.)
The race is on to find just the right candidate to helm the bloody stump that is Yahoo. But Yang has shepherded the destruction of so much company value, both in terms of stock price and in terms of employee morale, that asking a candidate to step in is like asking someone to parachute onto the Titanic.
This is bad for the good people that work at Yahoo, but it's also destructive to the open-source assets that Yahoo had begun to assemble, such as Hadoop and Zimbra. This won't be the first concern for Yahoo, but it's depressing to see so much potential die in the womb.
For the Zimbra folks, in particular, it's sad to see the exceptional work that they created get smudged with the weakening Yahoo brand.
... Read More
Word on the street is that three open-source companies will be getting new leadership in the next few weeks. I'm really excited about one of the changes, as it involves bringing in an open-source savvy person to an open-source savvy company. Match made in heaven, right?
For the other two, it's not clear yet that the benches are deep in open-source talent. It's hard to find people who are great managers, compelling visionaries, and open-source friendly, all at the same time. We're getting there, but it's tough growing open-source experience. It takes time. There are no shortcuts.
... Read MoreI asked a range of open source CEOs to comment on some of the surprises and challenges associated with running an open source company. I figured it would be an interesting exercise since many of them came from proprietary software companies, and so would have a good idea of whether the grass is, in fact, any greener on the open source side of the fence.
In ease case, I asked for the following information:
- Name, position, and company of executive
- Year company was founded and year you joined it
- Stage of funding and names of venture firms that have invested
- Background prior to current company (Positions held and/or something that led you to open source/where you are now)
- Biggest surprise you?ve encountered in your role with your company
- Hardest challenge you?ve had so far at your open source company
- If you could start over again from scratch, what would you do differently?
- Top three pieces of advice for would-be open source CEOs
I got a wide variety of responses, which I'll be showcasing here at The Open Road over the next few days.
I decided to start off the series with my good friend and former co-blogger (at InfoWorld's Open Sources blog), Dave Rosenberg, CEO and co-founder of MuleSource:
... Read More- prev
- 1
- next
