One big problem here is that his resume looks great to technical people, but is mostly incomprehensible to non-technical people. My experience is that technical managers are more biased towards younger people than non-technical managers because that's how they, as managers, add most value and can get credit for work done. Older, more experienced engineers are more likely to threaten their authority and less likely to fit into their vision of how development ought to be done or value their advice or mentorship.
On the other hand, non-technical managers, have much more of a need for experienced leads they can trust that can manage the technical aspects and offer advice so that they don't appear clueless to the rank & file and management. Non-technical managers are also unlikely to be able to have the ability to sort through resumes of inexperienced college graduates and distinguish between good programmers and bad programmers.
Furthermore, at most non-software companies is that the further you go in your career, the less likely that you will report to a technical manager because experienced technical people are expected to able to deliver business value directly, without having to go through a chain of technical management. All of this means the older and more experienced you get, the more your resume has to make sense to non-technical people. This is doubly true if you're not a technical specialist that can solve difficult problems other technical people encounter.
As it stands, the resume looks like an extrapolation of the kind of stuff that people like to see when they hire a junior programmer out of school or otherwise young programmers. This is why a lot of people here have a visceral positive reaction. It looks good, but it's gone too far and it's a bit out of character. We like to see hardcore technical stuff in young people's resumes to distinguish contenders from pretenders but people who are hiring older engineers usually don't care about that. It's also clear that he qualifies as a specialist in some of the things he's done, but we don't know what they are, because they are lost in the noise of everything he's ever done.
On the other hand, non-technical managers, have much more of a need for experienced leads they can trust that can manage the technical aspects and offer advice so that they don't appear clueless to the rank & file and management. Non-technical managers are also unlikely to be able to have the ability to sort through resumes of inexperienced college graduates and distinguish between good programmers and bad programmers.
Furthermore, at most non-software companies is that the further you go in your career, the less likely that you will report to a technical manager because experienced technical people are expected to able to deliver business value directly, without having to go through a chain of technical management. All of this means the older and more experienced you get, the more your resume has to make sense to non-technical people. This is doubly true if you're not a technical specialist that can solve difficult problems other technical people encounter.
As it stands, the resume looks like an extrapolation of the kind of stuff that people like to see when they hire a junior programmer out of school or otherwise young programmers. This is why a lot of people here have a visceral positive reaction. It looks good, but it's gone too far and it's a bit out of character. We like to see hardcore technical stuff in young people's resumes to distinguish contenders from pretenders but people who are hiring older engineers usually don't care about that. It's also clear that he qualifies as a specialist in some of the things he's done, but we don't know what they are, because they are lost in the noise of everything he's ever done.