> _They basically left that system to rot without supervision_ A few things were probably going on: 1. Microsoft is all about control and process. A lot of th

> _They basically left that system to rot without supervision_ A few things were probably going on: 1. Microsoft is all about control and process. A lot of this is justified with "security" (so devs don't add holes to the system) or "content control" (so Little Timmy isn't allowed to see giant pink ... stuff, in games) or "we've always done it this way" (which is /safe/). 2. Promotions at MS are gated by how much you're perceived to be involved in things, not necessarily by how much value you are adding. So going to lots of meetings and being visible (e.g., adding process, or being a gatekeeper) is rewarded much more than making something go smoothly. Being invisible at review time is Not A Good Thing. Therefore: lots of accretion. 3. Reviews again: "I made that thing we did last year continue to go well" is weaker than "I did whizzy features X, Y and Z". (Hell, I've done this myself). You can't appear to be sitting on your butt. The end result is that MS becomes difficult to work with, appears to lose focus, and cycles new, somewhat flaky technology at developers at unsustainable rates. The "new shiny" of two years ago becomes a wasteland because nobody ever got a good review based on the efforts of 18 months ago.