It started with their manager, a long-time SAS exec with excellent technical skills, who retired suddenly. Why? Was he at odds with the Big German's successor BH? Did the rest of the team's exodus stem from the same reason, or because he left, or because they were drawn to greener pastures / wanted off the sinking ship? I've always been curious.
42 replies (most recent on top)
Why is everyone so afraid of mentioning people by name?
GD operates as what I would consider COO, but does not have the official title.
SAS currently does not have a COO. OS was both a CTO and COO.
The executive leadership team now at SAS does not show a COO. I wonder why.
https://www.sas.com/en_us/company-information/leadership.html
I feel like I'm sitting on Grandpa's knee, listening to stories about the war.
Who was DD in the GoF? Stats guy? I get the rest.
Whoever was ruling R&D in 1996. Was Robert Cross still in charge then? As I recall, the WIntel juggernaut was gaining ground so fast that we believed Windows was the only viable desktop platform going forward, with SAS running as a "headless compute server" on various other host platforms.
IIRC, this was salso the beginnings of IOM, which smug industry analyst (aka Infoho) Howard Dresner affectionately, referred to as "putting lipstick on the pig that is SAS".
Some of us affectionately referred to the summer of 1996 as the "earthquake" surrounding the hype of Windows "taking over the world" and making everything else irrelevant.
Thankfully that delusion did not endure a few months, we got back to the serious business of porting/building/testing SAS on a cornucopia of host platforms holding various degrees of profitability and relevance.
"One GOpher told me that they felt their work would be more valued elsewhere, and that they were not happy with the direction SAS was going, particularly w.r.t. upper management."
Sounds like they voted with their feet. There's been a lot of that going on at SAS since 2018 or so and The Purge. It accelerated during the pandemic, so much so that SAS leadership had to approve a salary adjustment in late 2021 as a retention incentive. But they're not fooling anyone. Most employees are just riding the gravy train as long as they can, many hoping to retire before the ship sinks. Their loyalty is a bought thing, and it will only last as long as the getting is good enough. Imagine that.
JP is Jard Petrs*n.
Current Sr. VP of R&D, reports to BH
BH is CTO.
Where ones control ends and the other begins in terms of decision making, I’m the wrong one to ask. Im in the Sales org which is a completely different can of worms.
Who was it that declared MS Windows the future and moved development off of HP Unix?
KC was not the head of R&D from 1990 - 2005, he was the head of the Mainframe team most of that time. RLC was head of R&D from 1990 - 1997ish. Not sure who was in charge between 1997 and when KC took over. I don't believe that PK was ever head of R&D
Yes, you are correct Robert Cross was in there as head of R&D between like 1992 and 96. Something like that. He was one of the original "brain thrust" that built pre-MVA SAS 79 and 82 releases along with Bill Blair and the crowd that left around 1984 to found Tangram Systems because JG would not give them equity after years of them being "hard-core".
Robert had left and then came back.
One GOpher told me that they felt their work would be more valued elsewhere, and that they were not happy with the direction SAS was going, particularly w.r.t. upper management.
That is ALL that I know to be a fact. I could speculate a lot, though, but I won't ;-)
"I forget the exact order, but the chronology of R&D leaders goes something like the following approximation:"
What role did Robert Cross have?
"2020 -- BH
2021-present --- JP "
BH is the CTO and current head of R&D since Jan 2021 (after the Forester left)...last I know of. I don't know who this JP person is that you're thinking of.
I forget the exact order, but the chronology of R&D leaders goes something like the following approximation:
1980s -- JHG
1990-2005ish -- KC
2007-2008ish -- PK?
2009-2010ish -- AG (RIP)
2010-2011ish -- JHG stands in temporarily
2012-2016 -- AWS
2017-2019 -- OS
2020 -- BH
2021-present --- JP
Note that Doug Cockrell (RIP) may have let R&D at some point in there. He definitely was had a host systems back in the 80s.
Again, these are not exact date ranges. I was there for most of the ride and honestly wrote so damn much code. I can't remember who was in the BIG chair down to the month/year.
PK was from South Africa. I don't recall him being head of R&D. He was head of Platform R&D I believe, and VP of Big Data. I heard that the Forester pushed him out, but don't know. It appeared to me that there was no love lost between them.
Some of us guess that the Gopher team was unsupported by management because we saw management act that way many times, so it's quite believable. But if that's not what happened in this case, we'd be glad to learn the facts.
"Management is afraid of change that they did not themselves initiate, and sees innovators as a threat."
I saw this behavior many times, because so many managers were not highly competent and were therefore defensive. If you pushed for good ideas, they'd retaliate in small ways (micro-aggressions) and large (reduced paychecks). Every time I hear that someone else experienced the craziness that I did, it helps the healing process:
"This forum is great for letting others know that they weren't alone in what they experienced."
I know I should know this, but R&D was always on the very periphery of SAS jobs plus my memory of peole is pretty shaky anyway......so I'm just going to straight up ask - who is PK?
Was there a head of R&D between Big Bird and the Forestry guy or was the PK tenure before that?
Also out of idle curiosity....did Big Bird directly follow the Kitto guy or were there others in between there?
It would be kind of cool to see how far back we could develop a sequential list of R&D heads.
Or....never mind me and keep squabbling.
@1sgy+1pV7l0sB
Now who is emotional? Never mind rhetorical question.
You sound like a five year old.
"Some of us do have deep insights into it. Others speculate and throw sh-t at the wall trying to will it just to fit their world views."
Translation: "I have deep insights into it. No really, I do! And that's why I'm allowed to throw sh-t at the wall trying to will it just to fit my world view, not you."
Give me a break, buddy. The other poster was right, too deep to share here? I doubt it. Why "deep insights" and not "facts"? You're not one of the Gophers. One of the Gophers would have facts. So what do you really know? Nothing. Are you psychic? A mystic? Where do your deep insights come from? Recto-cranial inversion?
My guess is that you heard the same tired rumors and speculation the rest of us have, and are just as poorly informed but don't realize it. Dunning-Kruger is real, after all.
Deep insights? Too deep to share? Doubtful.
@1ybq+1pV7l0sB
You get a gold star
@1uro+1pV7l0sB
No star for you. While you might deeply desire to know why they left it doesn’t mean you are entitled to it. Some of us do have deep insights into it. Others speculate and throw sh-t at the wall trying to will it just to fit their world views.
You sure have a lot to say, and your prose is florid and detailed. You are obviously intelligent, but emotionally invested in this topic.
It is just as obvious that you believe I should have never said anything at all because I do not have a "thorough, evidence-backed perspective", as you say.
Yah, that's not the way this works. In the absence of facts, we're left with speculation and conjecture, inference and deduction, comparison of the known facts with others' "known facts" shared here and elsewhere, all of which is based on our own observations, our estimation of the validity of the observations of others, and what little we actually know or have been able to piece together, and which ultimately becomes part of the narrative of our own experiences at SAS, our own personal history.
If you would like to add some "thorough evidence", I invite you to in this very thread. I invite you to document the events in question, in detail. I would love to know what really happened: Why did the Gopher team leave?
Otherwise, it sounds like you have nothing to contribute other than the complaint that three blind men can't describe an elephant. So I really don't understand what you're on about.
But I don't need more perspective. I have plenty of perspective. And I'm not going to apologize for wanting to know what happened, because I consider the way this was all handled and the subsequent defections to be one of the pivotal events of the past five years of SAS history, as current senior leadership won a battle but lost a war, and the way it was handled was, as I stated below, stupidly shocking and petty.
I accept the fact that you are passionate about this topic. You should accept the fact that others are also passionate about their experiences at SAS.
I have an odd feeling that SAS is intended to expire when it's owner does. It is he, and he is it. Until then, it's a prolonged Kabuki show awaiting the final scene.
Your claim of having an 'informed opinion' based on mere presence in the company parallels someone during World War II claiming expertise on the Normandy landings merely because they were involved in the war effort in a distant capacity. Just as we wouldn't regard the account of a person who worked on an assembly line for combat uniforms as an authoritative source on the strategic decisions made at Normandy, your proximity to the events at SAS doesn’t automatically endow you with comprehensive insight into the dynamics of the Gopher team’s departure.
You seem to be overstating your role, transforming your limited viewpoint into a narrative of grandeur. Witnessing events unfold from the sidelines doesn't equate to understanding the intricate details or the reasoning behind significant decisions. Your stance, while confident, is mired in speculation and lacks the support of tangible evidence.
Regarding the Gopher team operating outside the mainstream R&D at SAS and being perceived as a threat, this assertion is a sweeping generalization. The reality of innovation in large organizations like SAS is far more complex than a mere conflict with senior management. Reducing this to a simplistic narrative of suppression ignores the multifaceted nature of how innovation is managed and integrated within such companies.
Before further eroding what you perceive as your intellectual credibility, I urge you to look into the development and implementation of a tiny little SAS project involving container-based delivery systems and Go services. A deeper understanding of these initiatives might provide you with a more informed and balanced viewpoint, rather than one based on conjecture and a limited perspective.
Ultimately, your time at SAS doesn't make you an oracle on its internal dynamics. Recognize that your view is just a sliver of a much larger picture. Without a thorough, evidence-backed perspective, your assertions are just a narrow slice of conjecture in a complex reality.
Because it strikes at the very heart of why SAS is in decline while underscoring what so many of us did, in an attempts to prevent it. Yet, our technical/innovation, leadership and personal sacrifices were not recognized nor rewarded due to an often ineffective management structure.
This is a very validating comment. I've experienced all that you've outlined. It's extremely frustrating.
This forum is great for letting others know that they weren't alone in what they experienced, and it uncovers the unacknowledged dynamics of the organization for those still working in it.
Why is this an emotional topic?
Anyone can have an uninformed opinion. My informed opinion is based on the observed reality of the situation, and that reality is that the entire Gopher team left SAS in less than one year. Why would they do that if their contributions were as valued as you seem to think they are? Why didn't SAS support them, or create an environment which encouraged them to continue their "well-acknowledged contributions"?
I'll tell you why, but you probably won't like it. They were operating outside the mainstream continuity of R&D at SAS, like so many other innovators at SAS, and a threat to the best-laid plans (and fiefdoms) of other senior management. It's hard to innovate when you give lip service to the innovators for the purposes of internal publicity but carefully sequester their contributions so that they are more or less meaningless over time.
If you've been reading the posts here long enough you'll know that this is a recurring problem at SAS: management is afraid of change that they did not themselves initiate, and sees innovators as a threat, especially if they can't be controlled.
How many of us have been in a meeting in building R and proposed some change, only to have a director say something like "I'm just not sure we have time for that now" or "I'm not sure it's the time for that", but then months or years later introduces your idea as their own? And when you try to pin them down, they always have some excuse like "Well, we didn't have time for that then", or "This is similar to your idea, but different (in some completely and transparently dishonest way)"? Or how many of us have been on the receiving end of "change" that was announced but never implemented for the very technical reason we told some manager would be a problem? How many of us were told "You're raising issues. We're not here to raise issues. We're here to solve problems." (one of my personal favorites).
TheLayoff is littered with posts from people who left SAS (and some still at SAS) with this exact story. There are literally hundreds of such posts.
And as for "speculation", I'll remind you that some of the people posting here lived the history you label "riddled with misconceptions and a clear lack of understanding". They can speak for themselves, as I have, but it's clear you're not one of them.
Your post about the Gopher team and the overall environment at SAS is riddled with misconceptions and a clear lack of understanding. Claiming that most people at SAS have no idea who the Gophers were is not only inaccurate but also diminishes the team's well-acknowledged contributions. Everyone knows SAS has many employees that have easily over a decade of tenure, the legacy and impact of teams like the Gophers are well remembered and respected. This team didn't just toil in obscurity; they built an entire platform, were featured in internal press, presented in numerous roadshows, and were the focus of multiple town halls. Their presence and influence within the company have been substantial and widely recognized.
Moreover, your comments on the supposed irrelevance of their projects and the 'big ideas' they presented are short-sighted. Innovation and progress in technology aren't always about immediate implementation but involve nurturing ideas that shape future developments. Dismissing these efforts because they don't align with your narrow view of progress is both unfair and indicative of a limited understanding of the technology landscape.
Your speculation on the reason for departures, comes across as uninformed gossip rather than a constructive contribution to the discussion.
In light of this, I suggest that you might be better off focusing on your coding, perhaps pushing beyond adding a single line of code every three months to your plain text editor, rather than disseminating half-truths and baseless gossip. We need well-informed, accurate discussions here, not misinformed narratives and personal biases.
"The Gopher team was recognized publicly during an R&D Town Hall sometime back in 2018-2019 and anyone with SWW access could have watched."
Do you even remember the name of a single Gopher? Sure, you may.
And I do, because our team worked with them. But I'll be most don't, and I stand by my original point: PK was always really good about talking up "his" people, which is why the Gophers were publicly recognized (if that's true, I don't remember), but I'll bet most people working at SAS now have no idea who the Gophers were, or what they were trying to do. I can almost smell the dust and cobwebs on their aging Git repositories from the house.
And some of them were "Big Ideas" presenters, which I always found interesting. What good does it do to be a person with a "Big Idea" if you can't get it implemented? And when all of your future thinkers are leaving the company because they can't get any of their ideas implemented, what does that tell you? And this was in 2020, which seems so long ago now, but in reality it's only been a few years.
"The team’s manager retired near the end of 2020, so the pandemic was well underway and Cary HQ employees already been WFH’n for months. He was one of the more important figures in the history of R&D and led an excellent group. Apparently there was some drama around his departure."
Yah, that was my mistake. It was November of 2019 when we first started hearing about COVID-19, not 2020, and we were all sent home in March of the following year.
But anyone in the least bit familiar with the way "his departure" was handled would know that this question won't be answered here. Only a few people know the truth of the matter. Of the principal players, one of them still owns the company, another is the current CTO, and the third is still loyal to SAS. Anyone else only knows bits and pieces, and the way it was handled was stupidly shocking and petty.
"I agree that PK was incredibly significant to SAS. So, what was the drama that caused the seemingly sudden retirement?"
Not really sure but I would not be surprised if he clashed with BH and GD.
What happened to their code? If all the Go programmers left, who maintains it?
FWIW the timeline was:
- October 202 - Gopher team manager retires
- December 2020 - “Big German” COO/CTO exits
- February 2021 through November 2021 - All Gopher Team Members Leave
OP since you know who they are I’d reach out them on LinkedIn and see if they give their reasons.
@1vwc+1pV7l0sB - I forgot that his retirement pre-dated the exit of the Big German.
I agree that PK was incredibly significant to SAS. So, what was the drama that caused the seemingly sudden retirement?
The Gopher team was recognized publicly during an R&D Town Hall sometime back in 2018-2019 and anyone with SWW access could have watched.
The team’s manager retired near the end of 2020, so the pandemic was well underway and Cary HQ employees already been WFH’n for months. He was one of the more important figures in the history of R&D and led an excellent group. Apparently there was some drama around his departure.
@kog+1pV7l0sB - no, "vote with your foot" does not answer my question.
- yes. I do work for SAS - and, this was something I've been curious about
- lol, no, I'm not trying to "flush" anyone out - paranoid much?
- PK's retirement was rather sudden, it seemed.
- throughout R&D, the team, "The Gophers" absolutely was well known
Why so butt-hurt?
Do you work for SAS? It sounds like you're trying to flush out who posts here. Very few people at SAS even knew who the "Gopher team" was at the time, let alone referred to them as the "Gopher team". And that's ancient, pre-pandemic history at this point, and not very relevant to the most recent happenings at SAS. The "manager" (actually a former CTO and head of R&D) you speak of retired right before the pandemic, and the rest of the team drifted away over the next several years. It was a protest vote, as in "vote with you feet". Does that answer your question?
You're right, I can absolutely see how being faced with supporting an organisation that thinks 'building spring light in golang' is 'overrated' would make anyone leave.
The question I'd ask myself is why they felt they had to build it in the first place.
Gopher? Some clues please.
They were overrated. Basically built spring light in golang by stitching together OSS and were faced with supporting it.