Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

The troublemakers
Photo by Michele Perras

I’m excited to announce that I am joining Mark Relph’s team at Microsoft Canada. That’s right. This is very real. This is something I’ve been thinking very carefully about for a long time. My official title will be Senior User Experience Advisor. My position reports to John Oxley in the the Developer & Platform Evangelism group.

I’m not the first to make this leap. A number of people I respect have joined Microsoft. Jon Udell, Molly Holzschlag, John Lam, Hugh MacLeod and Ryan McMinn among others have written about their reasons for joining Microsoft. Microsoft is an important leader in the technology space. Microsoft Canada has a team of great people, influence with a community that is foreign to TorCamp, and a selection of new interesting technologies.

What will your role be?

In broad terms, I will continue to function pretty much as I do today. I can continue connecting people, software, information and ideas. I will be blogging, building community, and developing software. I’m focused on user experience, community and emerging technologies. It’s pretty much exactly what I do today.

Why are you doing this?

I’ve spent the past 18+ months trying to build a vibrant Toronto technology community. I’ve had the opportunity to meet a lot of entrepreneurs, technologists, and designers working on projects they are passionate about. This role will allow me to develop new relationships, forge new connections between community members, and to produce results.

Recently, I’ve been working with the fantastic team at Radiant Core. It has been a wonderful experience, traveling to ETech and Web2Expo and attending ICE07. Radiant Core is a world-class design and development shop. They continue to build beautiful web sites. Jay and Mike understand the opportunity presented to me. They have invited me to stay involved with Radiant Core as a member of the Board of Directors. I believe in Radiant Core, the work they do for clients, and the quality of the software they build. They are capable of elegant, easy-to-use web standards compliant designs and they continue to build new tools and solutions that everyone should consider integrating in to their professional practices. I am proud to have been associated with them for a short period. And I know that they will continue to shape the industry with work like the design of the official theme for Firefox 2.0 and leadership of events like TransitCamp.

Strange fascination, fascinating me
Changes are taking the pace I’m going through
David Bowie

This is a big change. It is a change that allows me to stay in Toronto. It is a change that allows me to continue to support the user experience and emerging technology communities in Toronto.

Are you selling out? Turning your back on principles you’ve championed? On the community you’ve instigated?

I think Jon Udell put it best:

Wait until the evidence is in, then decide for yourself. I’ve been in this game for a long time. I think my record of pragmatism and agnosticism speaks for itself…

I don’t think anything has changed other than I now have an employer. I am really hoping that this role will allow me to expand my reach in the Canadian software and emerging technology community. I hope that it will be beneficial for TorCamp community. I look forward to helping connect Canadian innovators, entrepreneurs and technologists. I hope that my track record and dedication to the community will afford me the opportunity to find out.

What will happen to BarCampToronto?

BarCampToronto will continue and hopefully it continues to improve, refine and gets better. Our community members are striving to create a strong local culture. Mark, Will, Jay, Ryan, Eli and others have taken up the challenge. There will be BarCamps, DemoCamps, InteractionCamps, CaseCamps, VizThinks and a whole variety of other events. These events are run by individuals, sponsored by companies, and attended by community members. Community leadership is difficult.

The goal of the community needs to be to bring together members of the community, promote debate of ideas, engage the participation of citizens on an ongoing basis. By being open and making basic community services available to all members of the community at fair and reasonable cost, or free, we have created a strong local culture, with local relevance and a strong sense of ownership.
David Crow

This community is important. It is important to keep it open. To make it strong. To help it’s members grow and be successful. It can’t and won’t be dominated by one person or one company.

What’s next?

Microsoft: Change the world or go home

I’m taking a few weeks off to enjoy life. I start at Microsoft on June 4, 2007. I’ve been tasked with changing the world. Hopefully I’ll meet my goals. Until then I’ll be attending BarCampTorontoTechWeek, Enterprise2.0, mesh Conference and InteractionCamp as part of Toronto Tech Week. I hope that I see you at these events.

160 thoughts on “Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes”

  1. You know that I think you are grand.but.

    I can't imagine what you are thinking. Is this a money decision? I mean, with the most recent Microsoft taking on Open Source announcement (http://test.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_5897663), doesn't the world know that they are totally effing evil? There may be good people that work there, but they aren't the powers that be. That company is still run by pure, awful greed. They keep hiring amazing people like yourself to try and trick the rest of the world into thinking that they aren't pure evil. In fact, that's what they think. Money can buy them anything, right?

    That's really a bummer. Radiant Core is so damned awesome. A small giant.

    I'm sorry to hear this. Really. It's your life and your decision, but I hope you discover soon that you are 1000x better than this.

  2. <p>Let's try this again: the link to Steve Ballmer saying this exact same thing in 2004 is <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/18/1338228&quot; target="_blank">Ballmer in 2004</a> .</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>Unfortunately, the latest reporter from Fortune magazine was too clueless to ask Ballmer, 'Since you made this claim in 2004, you've taken no action to enforce these alleged patents and produced no evidence to back up your claims. Why should we believe you when you make this same claim in 2007?' </p>

  3. <p>Let's try this again: the link to Steve Ballmer saying this exact same thing in 2004 is <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/18/1338228&quot; target="_blank">Ballmer in 2004</a> .</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>Unfortunately, the latest reporter from Fortune magazine was too clueless to ask Ballmer, 'Since you made this claim in 2004, you've taken no action to enforce these alleged patents and produced no evidence to back up your claims. Why should we believe you when you make this same claim in 2007?' </p>

  4. I certainly congratulate you on finding new work.

    At the same time, your choice of employer is unfortunate. Or rather, I should say, the actions of your new employer are leading me to consider banning future contributions from Microsoft to the BarCamp community-at least while these kind of actions are still their preferred modus operandi. Funny how one act by Chairman Dickhead Balmer can undo much of the good and generous work that his community ambassadors have done over the last year.

    In any case, I still hold a great deal of respect for you, but I cannot say the same thing for Microsoft. I wish you the best of luck-and intend to keep a close eye on you-because ultimately you're still one of us, even if you’ve decided to play patsy with the Dark Side of the Force.

  5. Congrats David! I hope your position at Microsoft brings you lots of happiness. MSFT is a force in our industry and in Canada; I am glad to see they are hiring some visionaries!

  6. The patent announcement hadn't happened when I made my decision. It has brought me back to the deep internal fight about good and evil. The fight about open and closed. I don't think that Microsoft is evil. I think they are unabashed about making money. Their decisions are often disagreeable, but there is a lot of good that can come from them. This is the first time I've had to think about my employer and their local, national and international track record with respect to human rights and intellectual property. Ultimately, my goals are altruistic. And as walkah has told me, 'we'll have to wait and see, only time will tell'.

  7. <p>Congrats David,</p> <p>MSFT is lucky to have you but more importantly the community is lucky that you will be sticking around. I am sure you will stick to your values and not assimilate.</p> <p>To the haters, grow up. Don’t you realize that supporting another product/technology/platform just means you are doing the same thing David is? At least he is getting paid to do it!</p>

  8. <p>Congrats David,</p> <p>MSFT is lucky to have you but more importantly the community is lucky that you will be sticking around. I am sure you will stick to your values and not assimilate.</p> <p>To the haters, grow up. Don’t you realize that supporting another product/technology/platform just means you are doing the same thing David is? At least he is getting paid to do it!</p>

  9. <p>I don’t feel evil. Heck, I’m not evil. None of the awesome people that work for me is evil. I cannot begin to comprehend that anyone would compare us to the KKK.</p> <p>I’ve never lied to a customer.&nbsp; I think we have some of the most amazing people working in technology here at Microsoft Canada.&nbsp; I am proud of the work we do both in the Canadian marketplace, in the community&nbsp;and with some of the heroes around us.</p> <p>We may not have earned respect from all of you, but know that want to get there and we are trying. </p> <p>I can’t wait for David to help us take it to the next level.</p>

  10. <p>I don’t feel evil. Heck, I’m not evil. None of the awesome people that work for me is evil. I cannot begin to comprehend that anyone would compare us to the KKK.</p> <p>I’ve never lied to a customer.&nbsp; I think we have some of the most amazing people working in technology here at Microsoft Canada.&nbsp; I am proud of the work we do both in the Canadian marketplace, in the community&nbsp;and with some of the heroes around us.</p> <p>We may not have earned respect from all of you, but know that want to get there and we are trying. </p> <p>I can’t wait for David to help us take it to the next level.</p>

  11. Not to be rude, David, but Microsoft has been doing this for years. Here's Steve Ballmer in November 2004 talking how Linux violates 228 patents. Microsoft employs several hundred lawyers. I suspect that they could probably manage to file a lawsuit in the 2.5 years between then and now if they actually had any evidence, if their claim was actually in any way true.

    So you're working for a company which out-and-out lies in order to damage the Open Source software community. Has a history of doing it, and continues to do it today, and will continue to do it tomorrow. Microsoft also funded the long-running SCO patent lawsuit & funding another company's lawsuit where it essentially claimed ownership of Linux and sued IBM baselessly. So Microsoft used a proxy to push a nuisance lawsuit designed to create FUD around Linux.

    You need to think of your reputation. Personally, I would never hire an ex-Microsoft employee, just as I would never hire, say, someone who had worked for the KKK. I'm afraid that when you work for a company being fully aware of their proclivities, you have to take some ownership for their actions. I hope they're paying you well.

  12. <p>Gonna be seriously missing those Balzac's chats of ours! You'd better not drop off the radar :)</p>

  13. <p>Gonna be seriously missing those Balzac's chats of ours! You'd better not drop off the radar :)</p>

  14. Let's try this again: the link to Steve Ballmer saying this exact same thing in 2004 is Ballmer in 2004 .

    Unfortunately, the latest reporter from Fortune magazine was too clueless to ask Ballmer, 'Since you made this claim in 2004, you've taken no action to enforce these alleged patents and produced no evidence to back up your claims. Why should we believe you when you make this same claim in 2007?'

  15. Congrats David,

    MSFT is lucky to have you but more importantly the community is lucky that you will be sticking around. I am sure you will stick to your values and not assimilate.

    To the haters, grow up. Don’t you realize that supporting another product/technology/platform just means you are doing the same thing David is? At least he is getting paid to do it!

  16. I don’t feel evil. Heck, I’m not evil. None of the awesome people that work for me is evil. I cannot begin to comprehend that anyone would compare us to the KKK.

    I’ve never lied to a customer.  I think we have some of the most amazing people working in technology here at Microsoft Canada.  I am proud of the work we do both in the Canadian marketplace, in the community and with some of the heroes around us.

    We may not have earned respect from all of you, but know that want to get there and we are trying.

    I can’t wait for David to help us take it to the next level.

  17. Gonna be seriously missing those Balzac's chats of ours! You'd better not drop off the radar 🙂

  18. <p>To Tara and other open source enthusiasts<br />Let me start by saying that I used to be an open source advocate and very anti-Microsoft but transitioned to becoming an open standard enthusiast instead and decided to join Microsoft when over the period of ten years I saw all the issues that were caused in the Java world by giving out software for free but charging for support and services and understood the business models of various companies. Here are some facts about open source</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>1. Microsoft, Google, Red Hat, Sun, IBM, Oracle and every other publicly traded company in the world is in the business of providing value to shareholders. Companies invest money in producing a product as open source enthusiast would not work for free and no other service in the world like real-state, office supplies, air plane tickets etc. are 'open source'. They recoup their cost and make a profit by selling the product. </p><br />
    <br />
    <p>2. There are different business models for how a company makes money i.e. a) By selling expensive software to high-end/niche customers b) by selling software to the masses c) By giving out software for free but charging for support and services which the bulk of customers who deploy in production need to pay d) by providing a service like search for free but charging an advertiser for the ad that they display e) A hybrid of the a,b, c and d. All of these models are viable business models, there is absolutely nothing EVIL or DIVINE about charging for software upfront or charging for support and services or charging an advertiser to pay for the cost. Organizations like Apache and many of the universities and public sector groups are truly open source setups but NO ONE who is listed on the NASDAQ is running a charity.</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>As someone who really like Java I am saddened to see how Sun's strategy of giving out application and portal server to open source (as no one would buy it) has put price pressure on other Java companies and is bringing down the pace of innovation in the area (checkout my JavaOne 2007 report at <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/mohammadakif " target="_blank"><a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/mohammadakif&quot; target="_blank">http://blogs.msdn.com/mohammadakif</a&gt; </a>) as they must reduce investments or subsidize it through other parts of their business (like hardware sales). I think that technologist must realize that we serve the business users and must provide value to them or risk getting replaced by those that do. <br />Best regards,<br />Mohammad</p>

  19. <p>To Tara and other open source enthusiasts<br />Let me start by saying that I used to be an open source advocate and very anti-Microsoft but transitioned to becoming an open standard enthusiast instead and decided to join Microsoft when over the period of ten years I saw all the issues that were caused in the Java world by giving out software for free but charging for support and services and understood the business models of various companies. Here are some facts about open source</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>1. Microsoft, Google, Red Hat, Sun, IBM, Oracle and every other publicly traded company in the world is in the business of providing value to shareholders. Companies invest money in producing a product as open source enthusiast would not work for free and no other service in the world like real-state, office supplies, air plane tickets etc. are 'open source'. They recoup their cost and make a profit by selling the product. </p><br />
    <br />
    <p>2. There are different business models for how a company makes money i.e. a) By selling expensive software to high-end/niche customers b) by selling software to the masses c) By giving out software for free but charging for support and services which the bulk of customers who deploy in production need to pay d) by providing a service like search for free but charging an advertiser for the ad that they display e) A hybrid of the a,b, c and d. All of these models are viable business models, there is absolutely nothing EVIL or DIVINE about charging for software upfront or charging for support and services or charging an advertiser to pay for the cost. Organizations like Apache and many of the universities and public sector groups are truly open source setups but NO ONE who is listed on the NASDAQ is running a charity.</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>As someone who really like Java I am saddened to see how Sun's strategy of giving out application and portal server to open source (as no one would buy it) has put price pressure on other Java companies and is bringing down the pace of innovation in the area (checkout my JavaOne 2007 report at <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/mohammadakif " target="_blank"><a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/mohammadakif&quot; target="_blank">http://blogs.msdn.com/mohammadakif</a&gt; </a>) as they must reduce investments or subsidize it through other parts of their business (like hardware sales). I think that technologist must realize that we serve the business users and must provide value to them or risk getting replaced by those that do. <br />Best regards,<br />Mohammad</p>

  20. <p>Can't wait to work with you David! </p><br />
    <br />
    <p>Do your best to resist the radiating blackness of our collective hearts. But also be afraid. Be very afraid.</p>

  21. <p>Can't wait to work with you David! </p><br />
    <br />
    <p>Do your best to resist the radiating blackness of our collective hearts. But also be afraid. Be very afraid.</p>

  22. <p>Good comment from Mohammad Akif. I would add that if Linux code infringes on Microsoft patents then I find it perfectly reasonable for Microsoft to take action if it so chooses. Microsoft is no 'patent troll', but rather a company which sells (among other things) operating systems that compete with Linux, and is defending its legitimate business interests.</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>I believe the real culprit here is the existence of software patents. Ideally they would be abolished, but until then the solution is for Linux code to be replaced, and where the code can't be replaced because there's only one reasonable way of doing something then I'd expect that the patent can be challenged on the basis of prior art or obviousness. Let's not blame Microsoft for our bad patent laws, which it did not create; instead let the Linux community respond by addressing areas of infringement. Just because software is open source doesn't exempt it from the laws that all other software is subject to, nor should it. Those of you who treat open source as a religion, please stop.</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>David, I hope that you cease being conflicted about this patent thing.</p>

  23. <p>Good comment from Mohammad Akif. I would add that if Linux code infringes on Microsoft patents then I find it perfectly reasonable for Microsoft to take action if it so chooses. Microsoft is no 'patent troll', but rather a company which sells (among other things) operating systems that compete with Linux, and is defending its legitimate business interests.</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>I believe the real culprit here is the existence of software patents. Ideally they would be abolished, but until then the solution is for Linux code to be replaced, and where the code can't be replaced because there's only one reasonable way of doing something then I'd expect that the patent can be challenged on the basis of prior art or obviousness. Let's not blame Microsoft for our bad patent laws, which it did not create; instead let the Linux community respond by addressing areas of infringement. Just because software is open source doesn't exempt it from the laws that all other software is subject to, nor should it. Those of you who treat open source as a religion, please stop.</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>David, I hope that you cease being conflicted about this patent thing.</p>

  24. To Tara and other open source enthusiasts
    Let me start by saying that I used to be an open source advocate and very anti-Microsoft but transitioned to becoming an open standard enthusiast instead and decided to join Microsoft when over the period of ten years I saw all the issues that were caused in the Java world by giving out software for free but charging for support and services and understood the business models of various companies. Here are some facts about open source

    1. Microsoft, Google, Red Hat, Sun, IBM, Oracle and every other publicly traded company in the world is in the business of providing value to shareholders. Companies invest money in producing a product as open source enthusiast would not work for free and no other service in the world like real-state, office supplies, air plane tickets etc. are 'open source'. They recoup their cost and make a profit by selling the product.

    2. There are different business models for how a company makes money i.e. a) By selling expensive software to high-end/niche customers b) by selling software to the masses c) By giving out software for free but charging for support and services which the bulk of customers who deploy in production need to pay d) by providing a service like search for free but charging an advertiser for the ad that they display e) A hybrid of the a,b, c and d. All of these models are viable business models, there is absolutely nothing EVIL or DIVINE about charging for software upfront or charging for support and services or charging an advertiser to pay for the cost. Organizations like Apache and many of the universities and public sector groups are truly open source setups but NO ONE who is listed on the NASDAQ is running a charity.

    As someone who really like Java I am saddened to see how Sun's strategy of giving out application and portal server to open source (as no one would buy it) has put price pressure on other Java companies and is bringing down the pace of innovation in the area (checkout my JavaOne 2007 report at http://blogs.msdn.com/mohammadakif ) as they must reduce investments or subsidize it through other parts of their business (like hardware sales). I think that technologist must realize that we serve the business users and must provide value to them or risk getting replaced by those that do.
    Best regards,
    Mohammad

  25. Can't wait to work with you David!

    Do your best to resist the radiating blackness of our collective hearts. But also be afraid. Be very afraid.

  26. Good comment from Mohammad Akif. I would add that if Linux code infringes on Microsoft patents then I find it perfectly reasonable for Microsoft to take action if it so chooses. Microsoft is no 'patent troll', but rather a company which sells (among other things) operating systems that compete with Linux, and is defending its legitimate business interests.

    I believe the real culprit here is the existence of software patents. Ideally they would be abolished, but until then the solution is for Linux code to be replaced, and where the code can't be replaced because there's only one reasonable way of doing something then I'd expect that the patent can be challenged on the basis of prior art or obviousness. Let's not blame Microsoft for our bad patent laws, which it did not create; instead let the Linux community respond by addressing areas of infringement. Just because software is open source doesn't exempt it from the laws that all other software is subject to, nor should it. Those of you who treat open source as a religion, please stop.

    David, I hope that you cease being conflicted about this patent thing.

  27. <p>Everyone needs a job. This one necessarily? I have my doubts.</p> <p>Still need that Ferrari laptop? I guess it, and the trip to whatever that UI confab was, have paid off. They were both freebies, so it's the new Microsoft redefinition of paying off, I suppose.</p>

  28. <p>Everyone needs a job. This one necessarily? I have my doubts.</p> <p>Still need that Ferrari laptop? I guess it, and the trip to whatever that UI confab was, have paid off. They were both freebies, so it's the new Microsoft redefinition of paying off, I suppose.</p>

  29. Everyone needs a job. This one necessarily? I have my doubts.

    Still need that Ferrari laptop? I guess it, and the trip to whatever that UI confab was, have paid off. They were both freebies, so it's the new Microsoft redefinition of paying off, I suppose.

  30. <p>David,<br />You already have my congrats from eariler in person.</p> <p>But I’d just like to add one thing for everyone reading this thread: Good can be done from the inside.</p>

  31. <p>David,<br />You already have my congrats from eariler in person.</p> <p>But I’d just like to add one thing for everyone reading this thread: Good can be done from the inside.</p>

  32. David,
    You already have my congrats from eariler in person.

    But I’d just like to add one thing for everyone reading this thread: Good can be done from the inside.

  33. <p>David .Congrats to you and the others from Toronto joining Microsoft. This provides hope for that company.</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>I think Mohammad Akif's comment above sums it up well. There are only a few ways to manage technology, and its healthy for advocates from one of them joining another. This cross pollination can only be healthy.</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>With regard to the patent issue, I agree its shocking, and frankly contradictory when we consider where Microsoft found the ideas for their original graphical interface. But business is business and law (patent) is law. Stupid, but law. The law needs to be changed.</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>I have no Microsoft products on my laptop, but the reason is not philosophical. The reason is stability, security, and simplicity. If Microsoft developed a better product, I would use that. I want the best, not the 'free-est'. I happen to believe open source makes better products, and that ought to be the focus, rather than worrying about the good vs evil war.</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>But more importantly on the philosophical side, if there are changes required and expected from Microsoft, whats the point of whining about it & better to get inside and help to change it.</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>I don't think that open source advocates need to be personal and visceral in their attacks, suggesting character flaws; I think those commenters need to look in the mirror, or run for political office, where we expect such behaviour. Personal attacks are not very 'open-source'.</p>

  34. <p>David .Congrats to you and the others from Toronto joining Microsoft. This provides hope for that company.</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>I think Mohammad Akif's comment above sums it up well. There are only a few ways to manage technology, and its healthy for advocates from one of them joining another. This cross pollination can only be healthy.</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>With regard to the patent issue, I agree its shocking, and frankly contradictory when we consider where Microsoft found the ideas for their original graphical interface. But business is business and law (patent) is law. Stupid, but law. The law needs to be changed.</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>I have no Microsoft products on my laptop, but the reason is not philosophical. The reason is stability, security, and simplicity. If Microsoft developed a better product, I would use that. I want the best, not the 'free-est'. I happen to believe open source makes better products, and that ought to be the focus, rather than worrying about the good vs evil war.</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>But more importantly on the philosophical side, if there are changes required and expected from Microsoft, whats the point of whining about it & better to get inside and help to change it.</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>I don't think that open source advocates need to be personal and visceral in their attacks, suggesting character flaws; I think those commenters need to look in the mirror, or run for political office, where we expect such behaviour. Personal attacks are not very 'open-source'.</p>

  35. David .Congrats to you and the others from Toronto joining Microsoft. This provides hope for that company.

    I think Mohammad Akif's comment above sums it up well. There are only a few ways to manage technology, and its healthy for advocates from one of them joining another. This cross pollination can only be healthy.

    With regard to the patent issue, I agree its shocking, and frankly contradictory when we consider where Microsoft found the ideas for their original graphical interface. But business is business and law (patent) is law. Stupid, but law. The law needs to be changed.

    I have no Microsoft products on my laptop, but the reason is not philosophical. The reason is stability, security, and simplicity. If Microsoft developed a better product, I would use that. I want the best, not the 'free-est'. I happen to believe open source makes better products, and that ought to be the focus, rather than worrying about the good vs evil war.

    But more importantly on the philosophical side, if there are changes required and expected from Microsoft, whats the point of whining about it & better to get inside and help to change it.

    I don't think that open source advocates need to be personal and visceral in their attacks, suggesting character flaws; I think those commenters need to look in the mirror, or run for political office, where we expect such behaviour. Personal attacks are not very 'open-source'.

  36. <p>Congrats! I'm happy for you.</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>Microsoft is lucky to have ya! </p><br />
    <br />
    <p>Might see you next week to congratulate you in person at Toronto Tech Week or Interaction Camp, but I might have to cut it short for Microsoft TechEd (hey & shouldn't you be there?!). :-)</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>You rock.</p>

  37. <p>Congrats! I'm happy for you.</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>Microsoft is lucky to have ya! </p><br />
    <br />
    <p>Might see you next week to congratulate you in person at Toronto Tech Week or Interaction Camp, but I might have to cut it short for Microsoft TechEd (hey & shouldn't you be there?!). :-)</p><br />
    <br />
    <p>You rock.</p>

  38. Congrats! I'm happy for you.

    Microsoft is lucky to have ya!

    Might see you next week to congratulate you in person at Toronto Tech Week or Interaction Camp, but I might have to cut it short for Microsoft TechEd (hey & shouldn't you be there?!). 🙂

    You rock.

Comments are closed.