Why not release her earlier? Well, that assumes that the board was planning this for a while. Maybe the change came a little more rapidly than we think. Or, maybe they wanted to be thorough in their hunt for a replacement or were waiting to see if the numbers would improve. Perhaps they struggled with the possible loss of the Chief Scientist or whether it was the right time to change corporate culture.

It’s always a little sad to see a founder get the boot, but it happens all the time. It’s the risk a founder takes when agreeing to an acquisition or taking the company public. You can’t have your cake and eat it to. You can’t want all the benefits of an acquisition or an IPO without giving up anything. And what you give up is control. In the private world, the owner is the final answer. But once you go public, the CEO has bosses: the board and the shareholders. Greene knew this.

Sometimes founders are so close to the company that they can’t see it for more than what they know it as. Sometimes it takes a fresh set of eyes to envision something bigger and to take the company beyond its current boundaries.

As for the email on virtualization.info, I don’t know…some of it seems fabricated. I would find it ironic if VMware engineers are so “pro-FOSS” when VMware products are the most expensive in the game.

After all, it’s like Michael Dell, Steve Jobs, etc….They all have one thing in common. They built up a company, then made the mistake of giving power to a board, who turned around and ditched them.

Unfortunately, within a couple years, all of those companies were plummeting. I hope this is not the case, but what has tucci brought to the table? It was a husband and wife combo that built it, nurtured it, and directed it. It wasn’t a paper pusher from EMC or from Microsoft. Can you imagine how bad a pile we’d be in if M’soft or EMC either one had been calling the shots? EMC can’t step right most of the time, and Microsoft…well, that one doesn’t even need qualification.

Yeah, I read Alessandro’s report. There may be some within VMware that share this particular person’s views, but I am firmly convinced that there are others within the organization that do not share those views. While I personally feel that now was a bad time to release Diane Greene from her position–if they were so concerned I would have done it earlier, if at all possible–I also hope that level heads will prevail and VMware will continue to innovate and deliver.

http://www.virtualization.info/

As long as all partners are treated equally, then I agree with you completely–let each partner’s products stand or fall on its own merits. EMC has every right to partner with VMware in the same way that HP, HDS, NetApp, IBM, and Dell do.

What’s not OK is EMC reps inviting themselves uninvited on a VMware sales call simply by nature of the EMC/VMware business relationship.

I’m glad to hear that the word from the top is that things will continue in the same fashion as they have been in the past, at least in that regard.

Thanks for letting me know.

As an EMCer, I hate when EMC folks imply anything more than “we think we’re the right choice for VMware infrastructure on our own merits, and here they are…”.

Customers - if an EMC person implies ownership - just ask them to sell you a license - that will put a stop to that, since it immediately exposes that they can’t

Now, Scott - as far as EMC and VMware partnering up in the field, man, I think that’s great - where we can help them, and they can help us - and most importantly we can help the customer together, that’s not evil - that’s good business sense and goodness for the customer. Arms length = EMC, HP, HDS, IBM, Dell, etc are treated equally, not that EMC and VMware can’t partner.

In fact, as we train our folks (up to 300 VCPs on staff and rising) - to some degree this is natural (and something I would want to foster). That’s free open market competition.

Now, if there’s something bad going on - man tell me, and I’ll do my best to put a stop to it.

Also, I agree with you that the big risk now is losing Mendel Rosenblum, who I think VMware needs to hold onto. I am not sure about the people you deal with at VMware, but the ones I talk to are not happy and have not been happy for awhile now.

This just seems like a really dumb move and one that takes Microsoft’s toehold entry into the virtualization market and turns it into a foothold (one that MS would eventually have anyway, but way to speed it up).

If the VMware Board of Directors was so concerned about Greene’s ability to lead the organization, why wait until now? Why not take action sooner?