CLaueR's Blog

"...I do this by passion, not by obligation or by contract, even when I refer to things that I do for Microsoft as part of my job."
YOU know that, an obvious reader does not. Furthermore, people who blog here also and are NOT MS employees can be (and will be) seen as MS employees.

Also, even if you don't see it as an MS blog, it is. You are an employee of MS, MS has a blog policy and you know that, which makes your blog an MS blog.

Ok,

so as a MS employee (and nothing else is indicated by [MS]) you are now in the denial phase?

What about caring for the people reading your blog. I prefer to hae MS employees separated out. This was organized for this blog. So, I would suggest you behave when you blog here and follow what people consider to be the accepted rules.

Ok so I'm an [OA] blogger, ridiculous!

"So, I would suggest you behave when you blog here and follow what people consider to be the accepted rules"

Thomas, this isn't boot camp you know, loosen up a little m8. We are all giving our best effort to make things works.

That doesn't match my conception of blogs. I thought that blogging was about building a digital identity, and reading blogs was about building one's mind about the blogger's personality, interests and opinions. You cannot sumarize a blogger to the fact that he's or he's not an [MS] employee.

As Paul says it very well, we're all part of something that is often refered to as "the .NET community". I don't think that this need of independence, isolation and distance from the editor is something that is so present in other communities. It looks to me as if a lot of people were afraid of Microsoft.

Last thing, what does it means to say that my Blog is an [MS] Blog when I've been a Unix guy for more than ten years, and only working at Microsoft for two years and some months? That doesn't seem to reflect my real technical culture.

At least, this post will have generated some reactions :)

The '[MS]' tag just tells the reader that whatever you state about .NET tech stuff is 'kosher', 'gospel'...
:-)

Agreed, this is a much better use of this tag :))

"Last thing, what does it means to say that my Blog is an [MS] Blog when I've been a Unix guy for more than ten years, and only working at Microsoft for two years and some months? That doesn't seem to reflect my real technical culture."
It means that what you say is within the borders of the MS blog policy. It also means that you as an MS employee said something. It IS different when an MS employee says something about .NET then when I do it, even if I'm right and he/she is wrong in that rare situation.

I really don't understand why it is so hard for you to add the [MS] tag, after all you ARE an MS employee, blogging on a .NET blog. This isn't a blog about politics or cars, it's THE blogspace offered to YOU by Microsoft, or am I mistaken? :)

Frans,

I think we will sooner or later end the discussion by agreeing :) Also remember that English is not my mother tongue, and explaining some subtle concepts and ideas in English is not always easy to me.

"it's THE blogspace offered to YOU by Microsoft, or am I mistaken? :)"

You do :) It is a blogspace that was offered to me by Scott and that happens to have been moved to the asp.net domain some times later, a domain that belongs to Microsoft.

I made my disclaimer clear about this point:
http://weblogs.asp.net/clauer/archive/2003/04/06/4929.aspx

One more reason why I refuse to add this [MS] sign to my name, is that my posts are about *my* opinion, even if they're might be tinted by the fact that I'm a Microsoft employee. But these posts are never meant to be Microsoft's official voice or opinion on a given subject. I really do not want people to think that my posts reflect Microsoft's position.

On the other hand, when I reply to questions in the newsgroups, I use this same [MS] tag since in this case I stick to technical subjects. When I give advices or technical answers, they're generally those that any MS employee would have given in the same case. To me I'm then a completely different person, but may be I'm a bit schizophrenic :)

When I blog about Xamlon, some Borland's products like Octane or Janeva, or even about Project Mono, do you really think it reflects my employer's position?

My understanding is that the tag is really more something like [non-ASP.NET]; an indication to the old ASP.NET community that the poster is one of the new folks generously hosted on this site, but not necessarily talking about ASP.NET. Look at it that way, having two separate feeds makes more sense.

"I think we will sooner or later end the discussion by agreeing :) Also remember that English is not my mother tongue, and explaining some subtle concepts and ideas in English is not always easy to me. "
:) English isn't my natural language also, so we're in the same boat :)

About your personal opinion and MS. You do remember the fellow being fired from MS by posting photos he thought were ok?

I don't think nor assume what you blog is the opinion of your employer, however it is (or should, otherwise you risk your job) within MS policies. Non-MS bloggers don't have to blog within MS policies. I think that's reality, nothing bad about that, it's just that what you say will perhaps your opinion but also within MS' boundaries.

I wouldn't be surprised if you would blog for a week how bad [insert MS technology here] is and how great [insert competitor here] is, your boss would like to have a word with you. :)

I remember this story of a guy who had posted photos of some boxes being delivered on the campus and who was fired. I haven't read all the details about this, but it looks suspicious to me that the guy was fired *only* because of these pictures. First, because everyone knows that Microsoft has a product called "Office for Mac": these products are certainly developed and tested on regular Mac hardware and MacOS, so there must be Mac hardware on Microsoft's Campus. Second, none of us knows the whole story behind this. May be the guy had already be warned about some other facts, and this one may have been judged as the one too much... Who relly knows?

Btw, I'm really confident about my manager: he's someone really smart and open. He knows me as being a former Unix guy, and he appreciates when we and other members of our team have open discussions about various subjects. Managers at Microsoft are generally very smart people.

Anyway, Frans, I wanted to thank you, since I really appreciate this discussion.

Bruce, your theory seems to be verified since - believe it or not - my posts are classified in the 'Non-Microsoft Bloggers' feed ;-)) May be I should tell Scott...

Move away from webspace provided by MS to your own space :p

No, seriously: There is something by law that states that every human is equal, by adding these tags you create seperate groups, some could experienced it as being stigmatised, you could even see it as discrimination, why would you be threated different for being a person working at MS?

A blog is something that belongs to an individual, not to the company that individual works for. The person can put it on an about page that he works for MS, but wearing a tag is too much.

When you would make a post about the lovely trip you made to country X, what does the [MS] part has to do with it? Nothing

If you are posting about technology, it's your knowledge you are posting, your opinions, wether you work at MS or not, does that change your opinions? If someone not working for MS makes a post about .Net, should we not believe what he is saying? Are all posts made by MS employees about .Net better? I don't see why you should be tagged...

You're right David. I'm seriously considering to add blogs (.Text based) to www.dotnet-fr.org when it's migrated to ASP.NET. Your pixie.be is a good example of self hosted blog.

Agreed about the tag, you really did express it better than I could have done. Thx!

We have the [MS] descriptor for credibility. Without it, people would be skeptical about every post and comment. People would think every positive thing said came from a MS employee and have no good way to tell if it was genuine. Since the host has asked all MS employees to carry the [MS] tag, it makes it easier for people to believe stuff they read. Since there has been a large influx of MS bloggers to this site, it's also a courtesy to the non-MS bloggers who have been here the whole time.

When people go off and refuse to carry the tag, it hurts the credibility of the entire community. If it starts to snowball, which is may, then there's no point in having a community that nobody trusts, which is a potential result.

I'm not giving you a hard time here. I just want to make sure you understand that the [MS] tag isn't ego-driven, it's by necessity.

So let me see if I understand this. If you have the [MS] moniker, everything you say is fact? If you don't, you don't know your stuff? What kind of lame excuse is that?

Really, you guys can seem to find anything to b*tch about. If it's not C# vs VB.NET, it's about non-MS bloggers vs MS bloggers and how they klog the main feed.

Is it nice to know that a blogger works for Microsoft. Sure. Does it mean everything they say is fact. No. As a matter of fact, a blogger who will remain nameless stated something that was in my oppinion very inappropriate coming from someone who works for Microsoft. I explained my position to the blogger and he removed the comment. Because I knew that he was a Microsoft employee, I spoke up. If it were anyone else, I would have ignored the comment as I've been 'trained' to do ;-)

I don't think someone should hide they are an employee, but I don't think they should be penalized for it either. I'd be proud to have the [MS] moniker but I would find it distasteful if I were forced to do anything that I didn't want to do. Blogging (and the internet as a whole) is about free speach. As long as it's not breaking any laws, you can say whatever you want. Being an employee of Microsoft doesn't make this any different. As an employee of any company, you should be aware of what you can and cannot say. If you cross the boundries, that's their problem; not the reader of the blog. Also, I think that the content of a blog, whether you work from one company or another needs to stand on it's own.

There are too many people here on weblogs that are trying to ride a wave and have their voice heard simply by being in association with such a great domain. Prior to the move to weblogs.asp.net, it was all about a .NET blogging community, now that it is here, it's gained an air of pollution that can no longer be controlled by one person (Scott W.). Before, he had total control, if he didn't like something, wham, you were gone (I know this first hand, I probably deserved it and I hold no ill will to Scott W.; it was his site, he can do what he wants.) As it is now, the politics of the whole thing is getting a bit out of control.

Keep it clean and don't force anyone into doing anything that they don't want to do. To the Microsoft employees, add the moniker only if you'd like. I'd suggest not hiding the fact that your an employee, but I don't think you need to splash it all over peoples faces like your better than everyone else either. Even if that's not the intent, that is what the impression will be. It's unfair to both non-Microsoft and Microsoft employees to be cast into two distinct groups.

Finally, I'm aware that some of the bloggers on GDN were blogging about non-technical content, for those, weblogs.asp.net is not the place for you. It's time to find another home. For those that don't want to be 'mixed-in' with Microsoft employees, deal with it or move elsewheres. I have very little sympathy for this whole issue and would like to see it squashed.

Again, let the content of an individuals blog stand on it's own. If someone is mucking up the main feed with content that is completely inappropriate with the unwritten goal of what weblogs.asp.net is all about, then speak directly to that blogger and voice your oppinion by commenting on their blog. Eventually, they will get the message and either join the group or leave. Seems pretty simple to me...

Why not just add 'About' pages where they can tell they are MS employee?

If the reader believes it is of value to know wether or not the blogger is MS or not he can check the page

A nice solution to the problem, a tag in a name is an ugly solution, it makes you look like children wanting to belong to a group

(i'm sure everyone remembers their youth and gaming, together with the clans and clan tags, the more mature gamers i know deliberately wanted to get RID of the clantag when they played on there own, while the younger ones always wanted to enforce the use of it, the mature ones would settle with the fact that someone who wants to know can go visit a clans web site or look it up somewhere, just like anyone could look it up here)

Well Cory, it's disappointing that you didn't understand what I wrote before you responded to it. <deleted section> It's also too bad you don't like non-technical blog entries. They're not going away.

Anyway, my point is that postings that speak positively about Microsoft products are viewed with skeptical eyes by readers. When someone isn't very straightforward about the fact they are an employee of the company, it causes a sense of distrust in other positive postings whenb readers begin to find out. The [MS] tag has absolutely nothing to do with the technical validity of the posting. All it means is that people who have it are employees, so you should take what they say with a grain of salt.

People shouldn't think the [MS] tags have anything to do with elitism. In hindsight, it seems like it was a mistake for so many of us to try to be part of the community by joining this particular blog site. Would there be less hostility if MS got their own domain and only permitted employees to blog there?

Don't get me wrong, what I wrote wasn't targetted to any one individual... it just so happens my response came in after yours ;-) It was more of a general observation of the whole issue.

To respond to your point about people being skeptical of one persons views... I don't think you have to be an employee of Microsoft in order to get people to be skeptical of your views... they could just as easily label you as being part of the 'collective' since you have positive things to say about their products. Sure, their products aren't perfect; however, show me some that are by any company. Most of the time, Microsoft products get the job I need to get done in a manner that I would expect. This of course is not always true, but I would say it's easily an 80% or more success rate.

So, since I'm a proponent for VB.NET (as an example); my oppinion is often labeled as being an non-C# person; therefore, I can't be as inteligent about the subject as someone who is a C# developer. That stigma exists and theres not a whole lot I can really do about it. My hope is that whoever reads my blog will be mature enough to look at the content and not automatically ignore what I have to say based on language bias. It doesn't matter who I work for, the opinion still stands.

Now, focus that on what a Microsoft employee states about any product. Of course, if they are working on the product, I would hope they enjoy what they are working on and are excited. I think that you could gleam that from their blog and wouldn't need to have the [MS] moniker. On the other side the coin, if they don't like what they are working on, then who cares what they have to say anyways ;-)

To suggest that a Microsoft employee's oppinion on a Microsoft product is biased and should be taken with a grain of salt is rediculous. Reality is that everyones oppinion is based on some sort of bias. If you work on somthing using BizTalk 2004 and it didn't solve your specific problem at hand, you might suggest that the product is not mature enough for other people to use. So when you state that as 'fact' on your blog entry, is it supposed to be taken as more true than say a Microsoft employee stating that Mono's VB.NET compiler is not ready for primetime? Just because a Microsoft employee says good (or bad) things about a *any* product doesn't make it any more or less true than a non-Microsoft employee stating the same thing. There is no need to take it with any more or less a grain of salt than any other blogger (non-Microsoft). Oppinions are like _____; everyones got one. Oppinions are also not necessarily true or false; they are based on personal experiences (or the experiences of others in the case of me-too personalities).

So again, why should Microsoft employees be penalized and have to wear a scarlet letter and be labeled as someone who should be read with a grain of salt. They have the right to their oppinions (not those of the Microsoft Corporation) as do anyone else blogging here on weblogs.asp.net. Everyone here has an equal voice and should be treated equally.

You say that people would have a distrust of a Microsoft employee if they posted positive views. I don't think anyone is trying to hide their identity so that is an accusation that is severly premature. Several Microsoft employees use the same MSDN skin put together by Duncan Mackenzie and pretty much point out they are employees of Microsoft and have a disclaimer stating that the views expressed on their blog are their own and not those of their employers. So how are they hiding anything?

Do you see my point?

Cory, the interesting thing that I see is that Mr. Lauer is the one who began the controversy by refusing to abide by the convention. If it is not a big deal, then why doesn't he just use the moniker?

From my perspective, I rarely read blogs from non-Microsoft employees for various reaons. If anyone doesn't want to be known as a Microsoft employee, I won't read his/her blog. Mr. Lauer's choice is to not abide by convention and let me know he's an employee (or act as if he's ashamed of being an employee). My choice is to unsubscribe.

Well, bye bye AC ;-)

I'm not acting as an ashamed employee: What I mean is that I do not work in a product group, I'm not part of a product's development team. I'm not even working on the Redmond campus. I'm simply a .NET Evangelist based in France. I do not pretend to have the official voice about this and that. That's wy I think that it's not relevant to use the [MS] label.