Joining IBM
If you've been following my tweets you know that I accepted a new job yesterday. What I didn't reveal was my new employer. Before the end of this month I'll be joining IBM/Rational and working as a Web 2.0 Architect. I'm not sure how much I can say about what I'll be working on, so I won't be blogging too much about work until I figure that out. I think I can safely say this: I'm thrilled about this new job and the folks that I'll be working with. In the near term, it looks like my workmates will be @pmuellr and @BillHiggins and I'll be learning a lot about Jazz.
View Larger Map
I feel very fortunate to have found such an excellent position a fairly tough job market and I'm more than ready to start working on new things. Thanks to everybody who helped out by recommending me, blogging about me, offering encouragement and taking the time to interview with me.
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf on March 12, 2009 at 02:14 PM EDT #
Posted by stephen ogrady on March 12, 2009 at 02:23 PM EDT #
Posted by Fred on March 12, 2009 at 02:25 PM EDT #
Posted by Rich Sharples on March 12, 2009 at 03:06 PM EDT #
Posted by Josh Staiger on March 12, 2009 at 03:43 PM EDT #
Welcome aboard Dave!
As for "I'm not sure how much I can say about what I'll be working on, so I won't be blogging too much about work until I figure that out.". Everyone you'll be working with in Rational are strongly in favor of transparency - that's why we created Jazz.net.
I'd say that the only thing to be careful about is being clear about what you're committed to delivering vs. interesting problems you're working on but for which you don't have a solution in hand.
For instance, I've recently been looking at whether we could/should get Jazz development widgets and data into Lotus Mashups. I've convinced myself that this would be a Good Thing, but right now we're fuzzy on how we get there. So when I talk about it, I say "We're looking at it and it has promise, but we don't have a solution in hand".
So in summary: we try to be clear about when we're speculating so that we don't set unrealistic expectations with customers and later disappoint them if speculation fails to transition to executable software.
I suspect it would be fine to talk about the problems you'll be working on, and of course we don't have all of the answers yet. Let's be frank - if we had all of the answers then I doubt we could have made the case for you!
Finally, I think it would be interesting to read your public musings about some of the problems you'll be working on, to see what discussion it might trigger. I've actually been meaning to do more of this but have been busy trying to deliver the things we have committed for our 2009 releases!
Posted by Bill Higgins on March 12, 2009 at 03:50 PM EDT #
Posted by Davanum Srinivas on March 12, 2009 at 03:58 PM EDT #
Posted by Vijay Ramachandran on March 12, 2009 at 04:06 PM EDT #
Posted by Simon Phipps on March 12, 2009 at 04:30 PM EDT #
Posted by Rogers Cadenhead on March 12, 2009 at 11:41 PM EDT #
Thanks for the kind words folks. And Bill, thanks for the blogging advice. That's just what I like to hear. I'm "strongly in favor of transparency" too and, like you, wish I had a little more time for it.
- DavePosted by Dave Johnson on March 13, 2009 at 12:17 AM EDT #
Posted by Yoav Shapira on March 13, 2009 at 01:31 AM EDT #
Posted by Michael O'Connell on March 13, 2009 at 10:34 AM EDT #
Posted by Philippe Borremans on March 13, 2009 at 01:57 PM EDT #
Posted by Ganesh Mathrubootham on March 13, 2009 at 06:33 PM EDT #
Posted by 60.216.88.4 on March 14, 2009 at 02:33 AM EDT #
Posted by Wayne Horkan on March 14, 2009 at 08:19 PM EDT #
Posted by Rajiv Mordani on March 15, 2009 at 05:36 AM EDT #
Posted by Klaus Johannes Rusch on March 15, 2009 at 06:45 PM EDT #
Posted by François Orsini on March 16, 2009 at 03:13 AM EDT #
Posted by Ryan Boyles on March 16, 2009 at 12:47 PM EDT #