And speaking of giving notice… Ken Moss, who has been in charge of development at Live Search since the group was chartered with building a search engine from scratch, is taking a sabbatical. Harry Shum, former head of Microsoft Research Asia, will be assuming the leadership post. Harry is a fantastic guy, and really knows how to marry research and development. Should bode well for fun new things to come out of that group.

My four year old daughter has a way with words, it turns out. She loves to use them, and loves to describe things to us and tell us about her accomplishments of the day so we’ll be proud. She’ll tell us what she did at school or what she did with friends. She’ll tell us what she ate, and she’s not bashful about saying whether things were good (”I ate every single bite!”) or whether she had her fill (”It wasn’t so good…”). And then, typically at the end of the day, after emerging from the bathroom, she’ll tell us about her poop.

She hasn’t quite picked up that talking about one’s poop isn’t socially done, nor has she figured out the normal ways people describe their poop when they do describe it. She doesn’t use words like hard, soft, big, or little. Oh no. For a four year old, there are so many interesting ways to describe poop, because, as it turns out, to a four year old (or Mike Rowe) there are so many different kinds of poop.

Tree poop, for example.

Tree poop is not poop from a tree. Tree poop is poop that looks like a tree. Apparently, a Truffula Tree.

This evening, she had a new kind of poop.

Dead bird poop.

Apparently, dead bird poop is when there’s a lot of poop, and some of it gets on the seat, and it’s really gross. Like a dead bird.

She’s going to hate it when I tell her kids about this.

Update 11/9: Today, it was a flower poop and a squid poop.

A friend of mine was walked out of Microsoft today.

I’m not talking about Stuart Scott, the now former Microsoft CIO who was canned for “violating company policies.” No, another friend decided to leave the MSN Live Search team and join Google Kirkland. In contrast, when I gave notice, I had the luxury of two weeks to wrap things up, say good-bye, and all that. In truth I didn’t need that long, as I was at a good stopping point, but the courtesy two weeks is there for both parties: I had two weeks to wrap up the stuff I wanted, and Microsoft had two weeks to have me wrap up the stuff they wanted. Another thing that this does is I felt I left Microsoft on good terms, and while I love my new job, should circumstances change in 5, 10, or 15 years, I’d certainly consider going back to Microsoft for the right opportunity. In fact a number of people have done that, including my former manager at Microsoft as well as our former VP, Christopher Payne. And presumably, Microsoft would want me not just for my experience at Microsoft, but also for my experience outside of Microsoft (apparently, Steve B is pursuing VPs from outside the company rather than promoting from within, as they need some new blood at the top!)

Other colleagues I knew from Microsoft that went to Google were shown the same treatment. So why was I shown the love and not my friend? Well, as near as I can tell, Microsoft doesn’t want someone who has decided to leave for Google around so that other employees can ask all the obvious questions and think about going to Google themselves. Google is clearly the competition, and while it’s OK to leave Microsoft and do something random (like work for Amazon), leaving to compete with Microsoft is an unforgivable offense, apparently up there with violating company policies.

I still have a lot of respect and admiration for Microsoft and the people there, but this is one policy I wish they’d rethink. Companies are groups of people, and the people move from one to the other. At times they’ll compete, and at times they’ll work together. Treating someone as the enemy because the company they’re joining is currently competition is short-sighted and naive; all it does is reinforce the negative image of Microsoft as the black hat and Google as the force of good. And it destroys a potential future rehire… after all, who would want to go back after being shown the door like that?

Update 11/9: Tim Faulkner at ValleyWag, you are a total hack. If you’re going to source my post and then exaggerate the Hell out of it, at least have the courtesy of citing a source. Of course, you’re misrepresenting what I’m saying so you can ensure your nose is that Googley pastel brown, so I can see why you might not do that. Hack.

Update 11/10: Looks like I made Mini again! Probably making some former co-workers grumpy. As I think about the above, there may be other reasons to show some people the door immediately besides worrying that a person leaving might inspire. I can’t think of any that aren’t lame, but that’s me.

Update 11/11: Huh, I made SlashDot… hopefully my small little server will survive. Some points for those reading: I highlighted above, it’s my pure speculation that MS folks don’t want people leaving for Google to stick around to talk to other employees. There are other reasons, which feel… well, I’ll let you make the call:

• Microsoft is fairly free internally about schedules, new anticipated features, and so forth. Microsoft may not want someone going to a competitor to learn anything new and imminent.
• Other employees may want to talk to the person leaving, and that might put said person in breach of the non-solicit.
• Employees going to the competition aren’t necessarily motivated to do a good job wrapping up, so best to cut things off now.
• Going to the competition is declaring yourself as competition. Get out now.

In truth… I suspect that it might be the last that’s the real reason, petty as it is. Everything else, even the worry of people talking to the guy going to Google, feels like a weak reason. People will still contact the guy after the fact to find out what was going on. Schedules don’t change that quickly. Talking about how green the grass is on the other side isn’t breach of non-solicit. And professional employees are professional. So… it boils down not to a logical, business reason, but an emotional one.

This all being said, the facts are that people leaving Microsoft don’t stay their two weeks. They might not be given the perp walk out the door, but their badge is turned off pretty damn quickly. And this isn’t just the one friend who left recently; I can name three others that this happened to as well. But those who are leaving elsewhere are given their two weeks, and typically there’s a farewell lunch or dinner. It’s a crappy policy, and should change.

And Microsofties reading this — yes, I did bring this up when it happened to the first guy, and was told by our VP that “X is our past, not our future.” It was clear this wasn’t a fight I was going to win, and shouldn’t even pursue.

Update 11/7: I was partially right… looks like it’s Brian Bershad AND Craig Chambers leaving, and Brian’s leading the lab, according to John Cook at the P-I.

Some interesting tidbits here in the Emerald City.

So it’s no news that Yahoo! is busy creating an office up here in Bellevue. What’s a big surprising is how they’re going about doing it. Unlike Google or Microsoft remote development centers (RDCs), rather than having Someone In Charge of the Center and trying to have the center work more-or-less independently from the main office, Yahoo! Seattle will just be a collection of random remote teams tied to the main team in Sunnyvale. I spoke a bit to the director for the International Search team, which is the development team that handles requests made by the international subs that the main search group, which presumably is focused on US search, would normally ignore. He’s got the main team there in Sunnyvale, a remote team in Paris, and he’s looking to have a remote team in Seattle. I asked him two questions and got two, well, iffy responses:

1. Why Bellevue, and not Seattle proper?
2. What value add would the International Search team get from being in Seattle with the other teams located in Seattle?

The first question was why Bellevue and not Seattle proper. For those not familiar with Seattle’s geography, there’s Seattle, a long, narrow lake that runs north-south with two congested bridges across it (520 and I-90), and then the east side consisting of places like Bellevue and Redmond. People who live in Seattle hate commuting to the east side due to the miles of stop and go traffic. Microsoft isn’t moving anytime soon, and Google opened up an office in Kirkland, also on the east side. So why not offer something different, like a nicer commute or better digs? He didn’t know.

The second question also got a non-answer. He wasn’t sure who else was going to be up in Seattle, so apart from having an office with a bunch of Yahoo! engineers, it wasn’t clear that there’d be any synergy with the other teams. Seems… well, broken to me. Hey Yahoo!, is this really what’s happening?

Oh, and while we’re talking about something in Seattle, rumor has it Craig Chambers, a CS professor at the University of Washington, will be jumping ship to lead the Google Fremont office. This is total rumor at this point, as I heard it while at UW Affiliates the other day, but hey, you heard it here first. What is not rumor is that Google Fremont will be a dev office, meaning at least one of the big three will have an option for people to stay in Seattle. Of course, those people could always come to Amazon, located in the heart of the I-District with much better locale and food!