Sources tell me that Yammer will officially announce on Monday that Samantha Loveland (pictured), VP for customer success at Salesforce.com, has joined Yammer as vice president for worldwide customer engagement.

Loveland — who, according to her LinkedIn profile, goes by “Sam” — will report to David Obrand, another Salesforce alum who was hired by Yammer in October as vice president for global sales. Her job will be to run the team that consults with customers after a sale to make sure they get what they need out of the product.

Yammer is certainly on the move. It’s going to finish the year with a combined four million end users at 100,000 companies, and in September it closed a $17 million round of funding led by the Social+Capital Partnership, a new fund established by former Facebook Vice President Chamath Palihapitiya. Prior investors Charles River Ventures, Emergence Capital and US Venture Partners also participated, bringing the total capital raised to $57 million in four rounds.

Yammer is also something of a rival to Salesforce.com, and has been playing that fact up recently, gently jabbing at Salesforce as a “friend with benefits.” It also took advantage of Salesforce’s publicly available API to integrate Salesforce.com’s Chatter within its Yammer. It is fair to say that these companies have something of a history.

Anyhow, Loveland’s first day on the job at Yammer will be Monday.

Facebook is now partnering with HTC to build an Android-based phone — code-named “Buffy” — around its own social operating system platform, as we reported yesterday.

But hasn’t Facebook been working on this phone thing for a long time?

This was the response from many people who track the company and recall the first reports about such a project from TechCrunch and Business Insider last September, as well as the bits and pieces that have cropped up since then.

The answer is complex, as Facebook’s original phone effort was stillborn.

About a year and a half ago, a Facebook mobile special ops team was formed, with its own building separate from the rest of the company. The workspace was accessible by keycard only to people intimately involved in the effort.

This Facebook team was indeed trying to build a phone – really build a phone — much as Apple did, with integrated hardware and software.

But when the project became too big and too political and different from where it started, many of the people involved left the company or went on extended leaves of absence, and the effort was shelved.

But the new effort had its origins in the first — including its code name, Buffy.

The first Facebook phone project was called the “Social Layer,” which was then shortened to “Slayer,” a sly mashup of the phrase.

But that was deemed too violent, and the gentler Buffy was chosen — after the popular television vampire slayer.

The team working on Slayer/Buffy included its leader, Chamath Palihapitiya, as well as Firefox founder and Facebook iPhone app creator Joe Hewitt, Google Chrome OS creator Matt Papakipos, biz dev exec Priti Choksi, developer Zhen Fang and designer Matt Cahill.

This was an exclusive and handpicked group, which generated awkwardness within Facebook’s flat organization.

That’s because Facebook has historically only ever made one product — its social platform. To have a secret team operating out of a separate building drew a lot of interest and also jealousy from other employees, multiple sources said.

The Slayers were working on everything from industrial design to carrier subsidies in order to build the ultimate Facebook phone. They had discussions with potential partners such as AT&T and Intel, sources said.

But, as often happens in ambitious efforts like this, the project quickly spiraled out of Facebook’s expertise and into budgets that were impossible without an IPO or perhaps a billion-dollar fund raising.

With its horizon more limited, those involved — many of them longtime Facebook employees — lost faith amid power struggles and a growing concern that they wouldn’t have the leeway to create something that could truly compete with Apple’s iPhone.

So the team scaled back and looked at building on top of Android. Soon many of them ended up quitting Facebook altogether.

Palihapitiya, for instance, founded his own venture capital firm in June, while Hewitt left Facebook in May to work on his own projects.

Thus the first version of Buffy was slain, until it recently got new life under Facebook CTO Bret Taylor. A source familiar with the older version of the project said the company “undid and then remade” the decision to make an Android-based phone emphasizing HTML5.

A spokesman for Facebook declined to comment on Buffy directly, but told AllThingsD:

“Our mobile strategy is simple: We think every mobile device is better if it is deeply social. We’re working across the entire mobile industry; with operators, hardware manufacturers, OS providers, and application developers to bring powerful social experiences to more people around the world.”

HTC also declined to comment.

But, said multiple sources, that’s where we are today, with an HTC-made Facebook phone being prepared for release in the next year and a half.

Rest in pieces, Slayer.

Related Posts on the Facebook Phone:

1. It’s Finally Real and Its Name Is Buffy
2. Forking Android Offers Both Promise and Pitfalls
3. The “Slayer” That Wasn’t
4. If It Comes, Will It Already Be Too Late?
5. The Facebook Phone: Why Would You Want One?

Full Facebook Phone Coverage »

Please see the disclosure about Facebook in my ethics statement.

Chamath Palihapitiya

Ted Maidenberg and Mamoon Hamid are both leaving U.S. Venture Partners to join the Social+Capital Partnership. At USVP, they led investments in LivingSocial, Yammer and Box.net.

“Ted and Mamoon are on track to return more than $1 billion dollars on less than $100 million of invested capital from their investments at USVP,” Palihapitiya said of his new partners. The underlying tie in the trio is that Maidenberg and Palihapitiya worked at AOL together in 1999.

Ted Maidenberg

Palihapitiya, 35; Maidenberg, 36; and Hamid, 33, are a younger team than most you’ll find on Sand Hill Road — which they said should make them more relatable for young entrepreneurs. They plan to work out of a remodeled warehouse in downtown Palo Alto — with space for their portfolio companies and limited partner office hours — that should open early next year.

Palihapitiya emphasized in an interview this weekend that he wants the Social+Capital Partnership to be a different sort of VC firm. It will focus on investments in healthcare, education and financial services; it will make fewer investments in order to offer more mentorship; and it will get involved early but also have the capacity to fund companies throughout their lives, from tiny to (hopefully) huge.

Mamoon Hamid

However, the firm’s announced investments don’t necessarily seem to fit that mold — in the past week it joined a party round, led by Andreessen Horowitz, for Airbnb (after a memo from Palihapitiya got out — it criticized excessive founder liquidity in the round); and invested, along with a trendy group of investors — Kevin Rose, Greylock Discovery Fund and GRP Partners — in Web-design training service Treehouse.

Palihapitiya noted that Treehouse is an education start-up, and said only a few of the 11 deals the Social+Capital Partnership has done so far have been announced. Other investments include diabetes tracker Glooko and private company marketplace SecondMarket.

Palihapitiya had planned to take a pass on the deal after having taken issue with the way that the company had structured the financing. In a letter to Airbnb CEO and co-founder Brian Chesky (published here yesterday), Palihapitiya had bemoaned how the company was giving its founders a large cash-out, while not giving much to the company’s other employees. It would appear as if his note has sparked some changes in the deal, though it is not clear whether any changes were already in the works or how much the other employees are getting in the arrangement.

[Update: Marc Andreessen, of Andreessen Horowitz, which is the lead investor in Airbnb's latest $120 million round, said: "There have been no changes in the deal, but there will be a liquidity program for employees, which is in development.”]

In his original letter, Palihapitiya objected to the fact that the founders were getting a $21 million dividend without having to sell shares as part of a funding round that values the company at $1.2 billion

On Sunday, Palihapitiya sent an email to AllThingsD, with a note (see below) that Palihapitiya said was prepared in discussion with Chesky and Airbnb’s board.

So, in Silicon Valley’s perpetually churning deal machine, perhaps all’s well that ends well for Airbnb and its employees.

Kara,

I wanted to follow up with you regarding your article yesterday. I wanted to confirm, again, that I did write the email that was unfortunately forwarded to you. Brian and I trust each other and know neither of us wanted this aired out publicly but it definitely made for an interesting Saturday. In any event, the email I sent was meant to be a framework for a discussion between me, Airbnb and Andreessen Horowitz on topics that concerned me as an investor but topics that should have remained private. In any event, the resulting publicity has been really unfortunate and I’d like to update you on what’s happened in the last 24 hours as I think it speaks to the good intentions of Brian and the founders of Airbnb.

Brian and I have spoken at length and based on our discussions, I’ve learned some new items that have proven to me that everyone is paying serious and thoughtful attention to the needs of all shareholders including employees. Specifically, the company has developed a strategy about their next financing round where all employees who have been with the company for some length of time will participate in a structured liquidity program. While the details haven’t been finalized, I know Brian and completely trust that he will execute on his commitment.

Further, I still really believe in Airbnb and think they are a very exciting company with tremendous growth potential. This was why I was excited to invest in the first place. Based on the strategic intent to balance employee and founder liquidity which will align long term interests, and further clarifications around the technical details of the financing, I feel comfortable that things are in a good place and, as a result, have decided to participate in the financing.

Again, its unfortunate that we have had to discuss this in public, but I also want you to know that this email to you will be my last public communication on this topic. I’m really looking forward to helping Brian scale and grow Airbnb into a huge, long-term company and, going forward, intend to spend more time with Brian face to face versus over email! :)

Thanks and take care,
Chamath

Here’s some electric weekend reading for those interested in the push and pull between venture investors and start-ups in the frothy Web 2.0 environment.

In an email to Airbnb CEO and co-founder Brian Chesky (which I obtained, embedded below), former Facebook exec Chamath Palihapitiya, who now runs an investment fund called the Social+Capital Partnership, is passing on participating in the recent $112 million round for the hot online rental site that was announced in July.

The deal — which values the company at $1.2 billion — has not officially closed yet, but includes venture firms such as DST Global, Andreessen Horowitz and others. Previous investors include Sequoia Capital.

Palihapitiya confirmed to me that it was his email and that his possible investment in Airbnb was small.

That said, his concerns center on how much voting control of new investors’ preferred shares the founders have in the latest round and also a $22.5 million cashing out, $21 million of which is going to those founders.

Another $9.6 million is being used to buy secondary stock from current Airbnb shareholders, who have to render parts of their vested stakes for the money.

Such wrangling between investors and entrepreneurs is not uncommon in Silicon Valley these days, as ever-dumber money chases ever-more-powerful geeks. But Palihapitiya’s email is a smart, reasonable and well-written argument to stop the madness.

According to sources close to Airbnb, the numbers that he refers to below are accurate, as is what appears to be an unusual level of voting control by its founders. Presumably, it is to protect the company from possible future sales on the secondary markets and to keep control with its founders as the number of investors grows.

In any case, the Palihapitiya email to Chesky is well worth the read (I have removed email addresses as a courtesy):

From: Chamath Palihapitiya
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 11:16:05 -0700

To: Brian Chesky

Subject: Airbnb financing…

Brian,

Cc Marc, Reid, my deal team

Thanks again for giving me the chance to participate in your latest financing. I had a chance to review the docs at length yesterday and I wanted to follow up as, quite honestly, I’ve never seen a deal like this over ~60 investments I’ve done and I’m pretty concerned.

I’m all for getting the best valuation you can, minimizing dilution and maximizing control. We did this brilliantly at Facebook…all of our financings (except our first $$$ from Peter Thiel) were done not out of necessity but opportunity. As such, our investors had virtually no control and it resulted in a much better outcome. As we’ve discussed, I generally don’t believe investors add much to a success story and so minimizing their impact is a great strategy when you are onto something that is working.

This said, while several of these concepts are reflected in the current deal, there is one big thing that I am fundamentally against and violates my principles and will prevent me from participating in your round. When I saw that you guys were taking $31M out of the company, I didn’t think much of it as I just assumed it would entirely be via a secondary sale.

But as I understand the deal, it seems that you are doing only $9.6M in secondary and $22.5M as a dividend to common (of which $21M goes to you and your co-founders). I am really uncomfortable with this and don’t think its in the spirit of building a good, long term business. Effectively, it is a strategy that allows you guys to take money out of the business and not dilute yourself — I’m not sure why this is such a big deal when you guys are almost 90% vested and the financing is at $1.2B where your dilution is marginal. Further, it excludes many of the employees that probably have helped you and your co–founders get the company to this place as most of these folks probably don’t have any stock but have unexercised stock options and thus won’t get a dividend.

My basic principle on this stuff is that if you want liquidity, that’s fine, but you should make it available to everyone. Otherwise, no one should get it. Your current deal is the farthest away from this principle that I’ve seen in a while…this strategy has been done once before — at Groupon. We can see how “well” they are doing and how short term the investor community is now viewing their motives. I really think you can do better than this…and that you are better than this.

Separately, when you look at successful tech companies, it seems that dividends are an approach used by cash rich operations to distribute excess earnings — in fact, the most successful, cash rich tech company in the world, Apple, hasn’t issued a dividend and they have more than $75B in cash! Again, while I think Airbnb will be a good company, this is nowhere near the truth now — you guys still need to scale and build this thing for the future.

I really think you are onto something but I would implore you to not take the easy way out. Treat your employees the same as you’d treat yourself. Do things that you will be proud of and can defend to anyone including your Board, employees, prospective hires etc. In such a competitive hiring market, you are competing with not just your obvious competitors, but also any successful tech company who is also looking for great talent. A principle that treats your employees as well as you’d treat yourself is a huge strategy for differentiation, retention and long term happiness of the exact types of people you will need to be successful. In contrast, if you are viewed as self-dealing and shady, it will only hurt your long term prospects…

In summary, I’m passing on this financing because I strongly disagree with what’s going on. I’m not sure who advocated this approach but I did mention this to Reid [Hoffman, another Airbnb investor via Greylock Partners] last night and he was of a similar mind to myself and surprised this was the approach being taken. If you want some good advice — I would ask that you consider pinging him about different ways to think about going about the liquidity portion.

If you change your mind on how to close this financing, let me know and I’d love to reconsider. Otherwise, good luck and lets keep in touch.

Take care,

Chamath

That car-specific leadership experience — which CEO Jeff Miller said expresses itself in excruciating attention to detail and reliability — is actually somewhat unusual among next-generation transportation companies, which are often more philosophically driven by a desire to reduce the world’s dependence on oil.

Okay, but there still are a heck of a lot of people doing what seems like exactly the same thing, right? “We have a team that’s better equipped to build a technology solution for the problem we’re trying to solve,” was Miller’s response in an interview this week.

Miller said he also thinks he has an edge with Wheelz’ strategy of launching in the trusted environment of a college campus, where .edu email addresses and Facebook friends of friends can help car owners feel comfortable lending out their vehicles. He added that Wheelz will continue to launch on college campuses before it takes on the rest of the world. So far Wheelz has just 18 cars in its Stanford system, but it’s adding more each week.

Atherton, Calif.-based Wheelz has been in development for about six months and includes in-car hardware with a card for unlocking it, a $1 million insurance policy, and a Web site and iPhone app for managing bookings. In the photo above, Miller is demoing unlocking the car with his Wheelz iPhone app. The company is funded with $2 million from backers including former Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya and Felicis Ventures.

How does it intend to do that? By integrating real locations into the experience.

Last month, Red Robot Labs unveiled its first location-based game, called Life is Crime, which required players to commit virtual crimes at various landmarks in Seattle.

The experiment took place over the weekend at the Penny Arcade Expo, where competing players “committed” more than 20,000 crimes at the convention center and “hospitalized” more than 1,000 criminals, “trafficked” $1 million in contraband and “robbed” a total of $35 million.

The round of funding was led by Benchmark Capital with Shasta Ventures, and existing investors Rick Thompson, co-founder of Playdom, and Chamath Palihapitiya, former Facebook executive, also participating.

Red Robot Labs said it aims to grow its game studio and develop its gaming platform. It will also form third-party studio partnerships.

The nine-month-old company was founded by Mike Ouye, who previously headed up monetization and revenue for Playdom, which was bought by Disney, and Crowdstar, an independent social games company. The other co-founder-slash-investor is Palihapitiya, who is also the founder of the Social+Capital Partnership, a venture fund focused on the social and technology spaces.

The National Basketball Association team did not disclose the financial terms in its news release on Palihapitiya’s investment, which will make him an executive board member of the Oakland-based team.

Palihapitiya has been with Facebook since 2007 and was the first executive in charge of Facebook Platform, which he says will underlie many of his investments, though they will be in diverse sectors including technology, healthcare, education and financial services, according to TechCrunch.

Palihapitiya is reportedly raising up to $400 million from himself and other technology leaders. The firm’s working name is “The Social+Capital Partnership.”

Prior to joining Facebook, Palihapitiya was briefly a venture capitalist at Mayfield Fund. Before that he was at AOL. He has been an active investor throughout his time at Facebook in companies such as Playdom (bought by Disney) and Top Prospect.

A Facebook spokesman said via email:

“We can confirm Chamath is leaving to return to his roots as a full-time investor. We wish him all the best and are happy to support his new venture.”

Facebook, which is expected to go public in the next year, has earned a reputation for leaking top executives and long-time employees. Palihapitiya’s resignation follows that of VP of Technical Operations Jonathan Heiliger, who announced last month he plans to leave the company at the end of the summer.

Facebook only acknowledges 13 people on its executive bio page; now two of them will be gone.

That said, both of them are leaving on high notes; Heilinger just opened Facebook’s data center and open-sourced its design, while Palihapitiya has reigned over a period of almost unfathomable growth.

Please see the disclosure about Facebook in my ethics statement.

At a press conference due to start any minute, the Taiwanese cellphone maker is set to show off a pair of Android phones–the Cha Cha and the Salsa–as well as its first tablet and several other Android devices.

HTC’s move follows that of INQ Mobile, which last week announced two Android models that feature heavy Facebook integration. Gemalto also announced Monday it plans to integrate Facebook into SIM cards, allowing users of low-end phones better access to the social network.

Like many others’ news here at the show, most of HTC’s had leaked out well ahead of the event.

One particularly nice touch–HTC planned ahead and ran Ethernet cables to each seat in the theater. (Unfortunately, Mobilized left the MacBook Air Ethernet adapter back in the apartment.)

Mobilized has live coverage of the event below.

9:58 am: Still waiting for the press conference–which was due to start a half hour ago–to get under way. We do have comfy seats and soothing music, but would have prefereed an extra half hour of sleep.

9:59 am: Apparently all I had to do was complain. Now it’s getting started with CEO Peter Chou taking the stage.

“2011 is going to be an amazing year,” Chou promises.

Some analysts predict smartphones will outsell feature phones, Chou says.

“Features that were once fancy, extra, are now becoming standard,” he says. “‘Nice to have’ is turning into ‘must have.’”

Hardware is important, but so are software and services like Sense and HTCSense.com. Company plans new versions of HTC Sense for phones with keyboards, larger screens, etc.

10:04 am: Some stats from Chou:

25 million smartphones sold last year, more than double the prior year, with revenue up 93 percent.

The company’s global brand awareness reached 50 percent, up from 13 percent a year and a half ago. (Of course, that means half of consumers still don’t know HTC, but a big improvement nonetheless.)

10:05 am: On to 2011: 4G networks will change everything again. HTC Thunderbolt, its first LTE smartphone, shipping this week with Verizon.

10:07 am: Company is announcing five phones today, the most it has ever announced at one time. Chou says.

“I hope you agree it has been worth the wait,” Chou says, bringing out John Wang, HTC’s chief marketing officer.

10:07 am: Talking about HTC Sense. Location-data for 83 countries. HTC spent a year and a half building the maps product. You can preload, so travel won’t cost a fortune in roaming charges.

Weather is another good example, Wang says, where the company aimed not just to provide information, but also offer an emotional experience.

“When it is sunny you almost feel the warmth on your body. When it rains, you almost want to wipe your phone dry.”

10:10 am: First demo fails as video he wants to show won’t play.

“Well, maybe later on,” Wang says, moving on to the new phones.

And another fails as whatever was supposed to happen isn’t happening.

Okay, here we go. HTC Desire S. And, we’ve got some more demo fail going on.

10:12 am: “We apologize for this,” Wang says, annoucing a few-minutes pause.

10:15 am: And we are back, with HTC Desire S, Incredible S and Wildfire S.

Desire S doesn’t have front and back. Machined out of a single block of aluminum. “It feels solid in your hand,” Wang says. Also has full HD video recording.

Wildfire S, smaller and in three colors. “It can almost disappear into your pocket. (Mobilized hates it when that happens. We’ve put two iPod Nanos through the wash.

10:20 am: HTC Incredible S. As you rotate the large Android phone, the icons on the buttons also rotate. 8-megapixel camera, integrated video chat with front-facing camera. “Incredible S combines premium design with premium experience,” Wang says.

So, essentially these are updates to the existing product line.

Next up, the Facebook phones.

10:22 am: There are 500 million Facebook users worldwide, but 200 million check it on their phones. Those users are twice as engaged. Many young people check Facebook right when they wake up with a significant number doing so from their phones before they even wake up, Wang says.

Now showing a video of HTC’s work with Facebook to build the new phones.

10:24 am: Video of Facebook CEO Marc Zuckerberg touting the device.

“A lot has been made about a Facebook phone,” Zuckerberg says, but adds that there will be more than a dozen phones this year with deep social integration. “HTC is doing that here.”

Mobilized is apologizing in advance, but I may not make it through the whole press conference.

10:26 am: The new phones–the Cha Cha (with keyboard) and Salsa (touch-only) both have a dedicated blue Facebook button at the bottom.

10:27 am: Can use button to post updates, but also if taking a picture can use that button to share social network. “When you press this button, the photo is instantly uploaded to Facebook,” Wang says. Button blinks also when reading an article on the Web. Press the Facebook button and it will share that on Facebook. Similar, when you are listening to a song, pressing the button will share that information.

If you hold button down, you check in on Facebook Places.

Both phones also support Facebook messaging and chat.

“We did not just add social networking to the phone,” Wang says.

10:30 am: Bringing up Facebook VP Chamath Palihapitiya to talk about the partnership.

“I’m just frankly very thrilled we are taking this very important step, which I think will be the first of many,” he says, saying he expects Facebook and HTC to do more things together.

10:32 am: Chou back up, saying he could just stop with five great phones and ensure another great year. But he’s not. There’s a tablet coming.

10:34 am: Chou says the company could have rushed out another “me too” experience, but says that wasn’t what the company wanted to do.

Showing video of how the company came up with its tablet, the HTC Flyer.

10:37 am: Chou holds up the Flyer, then hands things back to Wang. Flyer also has unibody design, which he says makes the tablet feel solid but keeps it lightweight.

HTC wanted it to be comfortable to hold in hand. At 415 grams it is about the same weight as a paperback book.

Here are a few features: 1.5GHz chip, 6-hour battery life, dual cameras, Flash 10 and HTML 5 support, along with new 3-D-based HTC Sense experience.

10:40 am: Also has a stylus–unique among Android tablets–HTC Scribe technology.

Allows you to share things more easily, Wang says. Just scribble “let’s go” on a restaurant Web page and press a button and it is sent.

You can also use it to do audio note taking–a la Livescribe, where notes are synchronized to the audio.

Mobilized has to jam to our next meeting, but I think we have hit the high points.

Here’s one certainty in the hubbub that has resulted in the wake of the departure of high-profile exec Ben Ling from Facebook last week: COO Sheryl Sandberg is definitely not responsible for the melting of the polar ice caps.

That’s the joking question–”Was global warming Sandberg’s fault too?”–asked at a staff meeting at the social-networking start-up last Friday afternoon after the news of Ling’s departure on the heels of previous employee exits suddenly morphed into a series of increasingly vituperative posts on the Valleywag tech gossip site centering on what blogger Owen Thomas called Sandberg’s “reign of terror” at Facebook.

Using Photoshopped images–one of Sandberg wielding a rifle and another with the bright-red word, “LIAR,” plastered under her mug–the vaguely sexist and decidedly over-the-top picture painted was of Sandberg (at right) as some unholy cross of Lady Macbeth, the bad side of Hillary Clinton and a really grumpy fascist dictator of a small third-world country.

“She demands total loyalty, and brooks no dissent–even the healthy, boisterous debate that’s common to start-ups,” wrote Thomas dramatically, as if Sandberg might really use that fake rifle on errant minions. “You’re either with Sheryl, or you’re against Sheryl. And if you’re against Sheryl, you’re not long for Facebook.”

Owen, you have now officially scared the bejesus out of BoomTown with that added dash of Rosa Klebb!

(And, of course, this image conveniently leaves out the very pertinent fact that Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is still firmly and much more militantly in charge at Facebook than ever before, but we will get to that later.)

In any case, Valleywag used all of this to postulate that Sandberg’s insane reaction to Ling’s leaving–complete with a sneaky-sounding stock bribe to buy his silence–was evidence of her mad grab for power over all of Facebook.

The talented and strong-willed Ling was portrayed in an odd way too, as some sort of whiny victim of circumstances he was unable to control.

Except–while BoomTown likes a good “Tom and Jerry” cartoon as much as the next person–it’s a deeply inaccurate portrayal of Sandberg, who arrived at Facebook in March; of what happened with regard to Ling; and most of all, of the often-painful growing-up process that has actually been occurring inside of Facebook.

The Ling incident is, in fact, a perfect example of this.

According to multiple sources from all sides, Ling (pictured here) was offered the choice of resigning or being terminated last Monday, and he and Facebook senior management wrangled over how he would leave the company and announce his return to Google (GOOG)–in a big job at its YouTube division, in fact. But the true story of his departure is highly typical of how small, promising Web companies stumble forward.

From mismanaging expectations related to Ling’s job after his arrival from Google last fall (after Facebook widely touted the new recruit), to constant shifts in how the company was organized, to a series of miscommunications and misunderstandings on both sides, the curious case of Benjamin Ling and Sheryl Sandberg is–more than anything–completely human.

Which is to say, it is a bit of a mess.

Here’s what I found out, after spending the weekend talking to as many people with knowledge of the situation as possible, in a very long report:

To begin, as someone who has been consistently tough on the company for its insane valuation, criticized its sometimes ham-handed management and pressed it to show the true path to sustainable monetization, I think I cannot be considered a cheerleader for Facebook or for its shifting management.

Thus, I and many others looked closely at the recent departures of CTO Adam D’Angelo (to take time off) in May and longtime exec Matt Cohler in June (to become a VC at Benchmark Capital) with a gimlet eye.

Looking further, I learned from several sources that the 20-something D’Angelo had issues with the company inevitably becoming larger and more bureaucratic, and there were also questions about his ability to run the much larger and increasingly complicated technical organization.

The sudden exit of Cohler (pictured here), who had become Facebook’s VP of Product Management, had an even a more complex set of variables, sources said, including his longtime interest in being a VC, the highly attractive offer he got from Benchmark and, most of all, his lack of interest in running a much larger organization.

While some say Cohler–who was, in fact, key to bringing Sandberg in–quickly grew disillusioned with her and the direction of Facebook, it seems a bit of a stretch to me to say he left because of her.

As Zuckerberg’s earliest and most trusted of execs, who is also well-liked by all, Cohler had as much–if not more–power as Sandberg over the organization. More likely, I imagine Cohler would have stayed if he thought she was laying waste to the place.

In any case, the arrival of Sandberg–followed quickly by the hiring of former Google PR head Elliot Schrage–heralded massive changes and an eventual path to an IPO for Facebook, a journey that not everyone welcomed, to be sure.

With their much more disciplined and controlling management styles, highly polished Harvard, Washington, D.C. and Google resumes, and obviously sharper edges, Sandberg and Schrage (pictured here) represented a contrast to earlier, less-intense times that not everyone at Facebook has liked.

Many execs–used to the chaos of jostling for attention and power from the close-to-the-vest Zuckerberg, whose attention to various employees seems to always wax and wane–also resisted a No. 2 in charge.

Typical was discontent from Technical Operations VP Jonathan Heiliger, whom many sources pointed to because of his vocal complaints around the company and around Silicon Valley about Sandberg’s more brusque and meddlesome style.

(Heiliger now gets along better with Sandberg, according to many, as do many execs previously wary of the new regime.)

Interestingly, Ling was not in this disgruntled camp, having known Sandberg from Google and hoped her arrival would clarify his growing disappointment with the job he thought he had been hired for.

According to many sources, Ling thought his job as director of platform product marketing, as described to him by Zuckerberg and others who recruited him in the fall of 2007, would be much more expansive than it turned out to be.

And, indeed, the letter from his new boss, Chamath Palihapitiya, heralding his arrival seemed to indicate that Ling would have a lot of responsibility:

Hi Guys,

Please join me in welcoming Ben to Facebook as our Director of Platform Product Marketing, working on my team. He joins us from Google where he was the General Manager of eCommerce, where he ran Google Product Search and Google Checkout and was the founder of Google Checkout. Ben also led the mobile efforts at Google in 2004, where he launched Google SMS. Prior to Google, Ben received his Ph.D. in Computer Science from Stanford University.

Ben is responsible for overseeing Platform aspects of Product Management, Product Marketing, Technical Support, and Partner Solutions.

Zuck, D’Angelo and I are psyched to have Ben on board. *BLING*, as he is known to his friends, sits on the 2nd floor of 156 if you want to come by and introduce yourself.

Chamath”

It was a wide swath of duties, which seemed to indicate that Ling was, in essence, the lead manager of the platform.

This turned out not to be the case, as Facebook runs more as a “functional” organization rather than a “cross-functional” one, which is to say, no one manager is in charge of all the many parts it takes to get a product out the door.

For someone like Ling, sources said, the lack of structure meant chaos and no clear lines of accountability, and he pressed his bosses for more definition of his role.

For their part, sources said, those execs–Palihapitiya (pictured here) and then Cohler–felt Ling was too interested in internal politics, his title and control rather than in taking the lead in a more organic way. They also felt Ling, while a good executor of tasks, lacked the vision to be the overall manager of the platform.

Whether they ever did anything about it, of course, remains unclear, except for the fact that this kind of thing happens a lot all over Silicon Valley.

Let me just stop here then, because one can go round and round with this kind of wrangling over job performance issues and never be able to determine who exactly is to blame.

But it is safe to say Ling was not happy with Facebook and Facebook was not happy with Ling.

When Schrage was put in charge of platform marketing (and not in charge of the platform itself, as many have misconstrued, since he is decidedly nontechnical), the controversial move caused more problems and threw Ling’s status into even more confusion.

Ling and many others did not like the move, of course, but Ling did go to Schrage to share his disappointment and then took his gripes to Sandberg.

That, from what I can tell, is where things went most awry.

In that meeting about 10 days ago, Ling told her that Google had been tring to recruit him and that he was unhappy with the structure of the Facebook organization. According to those who back Ling, he was not making a threat, but seeking advice.

That is not the way those at Facebook see it. “Ben wanted a bigger job, and he was using the prospect of going to Google as a hammer,” said one person. “But he was not doing a good enough job with what he had been running to make such demands.”

Sandberg said she would discuss it with other senior execs, most especially Zuckerberg, and get back to Ling with some answers on Monday.

That was when discontent with Ling bubbled up among his managers, and suddenly a series of smaller slights and problems with Ling added up, and not in his favor.

Curiously, although Facebook sources claim they were dissatisfied with Ling’s work, there seems to have been exactly zero effort to remove him before he revealed the Google offer.

Nonetheless, all now agreed that Ling should not have the larger job, especially if he was also considering a job at rival Google–although, once again, it is not clear that he actually asked for a larger role within Facebook.

What has been lost in this story, though, is that the final decision came from Zuckerberg (pictured here), who was irked by Ling’s demands and his perceived disloyalty.

Sandberg and Schrage came back to Ling on Monday of last week with a startling decision: He could either resign immediately and write an email to his staff announcing it or he would be terminated by them that night and they would announce it.

Ling was, many sources said, flabbergasted that what he thought was an attempt to get some clarity had turned into this. His detractors maintained he was threatening Facebook by dangling the Google offer.

Ling wrote his letter to staff, and news of his departure leaked by the next day, both to me and VentureBeat’s Eric Eldon.

In my post, Ling did not say he resigned under pressure, nor did Facebook say it was about to fire him if he did not resign.

“I have huge respect for Elliot and work well with him,” Ling told me. “Facebook is a tremendous organization, and I would not leave it if it were not for a great opportunity.”

Facebook’s statement said, in part: “Facebook confirms that Ben Ling will be leaving the company in the coming weeks to pursue other interests. We wish him well and appreciate his great contributions to the early success of Facebook Platform.”

No surprise, but things got worse when the discussions quickly turned to the terms of his departure. Ling was only a few months away from his “cliff” for vesting one-quarter of the equity he got for coming to Facebook.

Facebook offered to either accelerate that completely or even make an offer of some of those shares, but only if Ling stayed on the Facebook payroll–taking a two-month vacation–and did not accept an offer from Google or anyone else in that time period.

In addition, deeply sensitive to the perception of a high-profile Google hire going back to the mother ship, Facebook wanted the deal to include a provision barring an immediate announcement that Ling would return to the search giant.

Obviously, given that the original story had been all about talent leaving Google to come to Facebook, the opposite was a much less palatable plot.

Still, this kind of request to refrain from going right to work for a competitor in exchange for shares is not untypical, and companies almost always ask for strict nondisparagement clauses.

But in the hothouse blogging environment of today, of course, to ask for help stopping such news from leaking is like asking to hold back the ocean waves. External optics on Ling’s departure clearly became too much of a focus of Sandberg, Schrage and others.

More to the point, although he did consider delaying acceptance of the job at Google, even though there were other contenders for the position, Ling did not want to agree to Facebook’s messaging about his departure.

Said one Ling supporter: “How could he guarantee that someone was not going to find out and then he would have had to tell a lie about his plans? Especially, given that Facebook is the leakiest place in the Valley?”

Good point and thank goodness! Valleywag wrote about Ling lunching at Google and I wrote of the details of Ling’s new YouTube job on Friday.

Facebook sources, though, said Ling threatened to badmouth the company if they did not pony up. “He insinuated he was going to talk badly about all of us, and we did not want to deal with him acting like that,” said one source.

Sources supportive of Ling said this was not the case and that he was not ever going to impugn Facebook, although Ling was, of course, unhappy.

“Why they didn’t give him some credit for his work and align his interests with theirs by being more generous is a mystery to all of us,” said one Facebook exec, who noted that Ling was prominently featured onstage in the most recent rollout of platform changes at Facebook. “His fall from grace makes you think anyone could go from valued employee to bum pretty quickly.”

Other sources at Facebook disagree, noting Ling was simply a hire who did not pan out as expected and that the fault was in not dealing with the issue sooner.

They also note that the company would never have agreed to put Ling prominently onstage if they had known he was considering a move to Google.

But once again, if Facebook was unhappy with Ling’s work, why put him onstage at all?

It’s hard to get a good answer to that question, which–to me–underscores the disorganization around Ling’s leaving.

“Ben is a really smart guy and Google is probably a better place for him,” said one Facebook exec. “He will probably do well, but he did not do well here.”

Actually, neither Facebook nor Ling did very well in dealing with the disintegration of the relationship.

Ling got a new job at YouTube and a fat signing bonus, but no Facebook shares, some of which he probably deserved for his work on the platform.

And Facebook learned yet another hard lesson about growing up. It is doubtless going to be one of many, many to come.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

This morning, Facebook is planning on showing a little leg to the press, throwing a “casual Open Door session… to learn more about the upcoming New Profile Design.”

You know, the long-expected renovation of main Facebook pages consumers use daily, which has third-party developers in a hubbub and is likely to cause an even bigger one among users no matter how good it is?

Because even though change is the operative word in politics this season, no one likes the furniture in their digital homes rearranged, even if it looks better.

The new design is set to roll out live to Facebook users in a few weeks; developers will get full access soon.

The social-networking site said in a blog last month that it would push back its massive Profile page redesign, which was supposed to be released in early April.

Facebook said then it was due to feedback the company had gotten from its legions of developers, who had actually been griping a lot to me about their many worries about the new look.

As I wrote in a post in mid-April about the Profile redesign: “It will require almost perfect execution technically speaking, huge educational efforts early and often for users and a total buy-in from third-party developers, whom Facebook made integral to its success when it made the very sharp move of opening its platform to them.”

Of course, Facebook has been putting on a brave face that it will all go smoothly, with a remain-calm attitude one must always take in the face of a possible stampede.

So, holding down the fort at the hour-long session, starting at 10 a.m. PT, it will be the social-networking site’s VP of Product Marketing Chamath Palihapitiya, Director of User Experience and Design Katie Geminder and Director of Platform Product Marketing Ben Ling, as well as other product managers.

That’s a lot of directors directing!

Unfortunately, BoomTown will be blogging from the perfect beach in Santa Monica, Calif., and will be unable to attend, although kibitzing in Palo Alto, Calif., over where I get to receive SuperPokes in the future would be my obvious preference.

OK, not so much.

But I will provide updates from ATD’s temporary oceanfront HQ. Until then, you can see some of the previews on this Facebook Previews page here.

And surly, given that we always have a lot to say about Facebook. (OK, OK, one tidbit: Its execs and investors have been disagreeing over how big a new investment to take–the operations folks want more cash and the VCs less dilution.)

That does not mean I do not hope to break news of what Facebook finally manages to decide to do, both with regard to partners and its funding, but that I will bow out of parsing this particular set of deals in excessive detail.

But our ennui got us thinking to back in mid-August, when we did a post making our own Facebook of the top execs there using your basic corporate shots.

So now, before they become all rich and start flying private, we compiled from less corporate pictures we found right on Facebook and the Web–we were going for a more fun Facebook of the players here.

We used all the execs from the last one, but we also added one woman, PR maven Brandee Barker, as well as the three principal VCs.

Co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg in a picture presumably taken at Harvard. He looks so young and naive. Kind of like now.

Zuckerberg best buddy and tech genius Adam D’Angelo (VP and CTO) on a thrilling night at Foo Camp! What could be more fun than an overhead projector and a room full of geeky guys!

Who knew co-founder and VP of Engineering Dustin Moskovitz was such a fox? His future is so bright, he needs those rad shades!

What deft bit of performance art is wacky Owen Van Natta, VP of Operations and Chief Revenue Officer, performing here? A meditation on life as an underling of various and sundry Web moguls–all Silly String and sorrows?

We have no idea what Chamath Palihapitiya, VP of Product Marketing and Operations, is doing, but it looks cool, and he’s dressed natty as always.

Hey, who also knew that VP of Strategy and Operations Matt Cohler was in a 1990s techno-rock duo? (Oh, he’s the one without the shades.)

VP and CFO Gideon “Death Cat” Yu used to have to drink from public fountains, but soon he’ll have his own, spewing only the finest champagne!

It is hard to know where to begin with this picture of PR head Brandee Barker (is she headed for the Castro Street Fair?). But I say: Own it, sister!

There are exactly zero interesting pictures of doubtlessly interesting Founders Fund VC Peter Thiel online (and we looked hard). That’s him on the right, looking the most normal of this PayPal crew.

Again, it is hard to know exactly what Accel Partners VC Jim Breyer is up to here, but we think the hat might be a new and exciting look for him.

Greylock Partners VC David Sze is thinking really hard about how he can say Facebook is worth $15 billion and still keep a straight face and refrain from cackling in front of all the other VCs at Il Fornaio.

So we are all up to date, here is the new–and much more helpful–Facebook page on top management.

And it seems now that all the executives at the hotter-than-ever social-networking company have become simple vice presidents (although some get extra titles, too).

While some were already VPs, it appears to all be part of a novel attempt at title deflation that is kind of admirable. No EVPs or SVPs or presidents or anything else.

While too many of the execs appear to be in charge of operations of some sort, it feels a bit clearer than before. And it definitely positions all the execs on the exact same level (almost like some commune!).

This was all set in motion, of course, with the recent downgrade in title of COO Owen Van Natta.

Of course, there is one who rules above all with the big title: Chief Executive Officer and Founder Mark Zuckerberg or, as I plan to call him when I see him next, the Man.

So, after the jump, is that skinny with pictures, of course, which is slightly different than when I posted my own Facebook of Facebook execs:

Mark Zuckerberg remains CEO and founder.

Owen Van Natta was COO and is now vice president of operations and chief revenue officer.

Chamath Palihapitiya is now vice president of product marketing and operations.

Matt Cohler is now vice president of strategy and operations.

Gideon Yu is now vice president and chief financial officer (and I like to call him Death Cat, too, because he is like that cat named Oscar for his unusual ability to get a sweet job at the hot Web company of the moment at just the right time).

Dustin Moskovitz is now co-founder and vice president of engineering.

Adam D’Angelo is now vice president and chief technology officer.

I also gave a rundown of all the top execs at the fast-growing social-networking company and their duties (there are an awful lot of vice presidents with operations in their title, which I shall leave to another post to parse).

But, silly me, this is Facebook after all, and I forgot the photos of each of the members of co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s brain trust, who will presumably make the popular site hugely profitable and an inevitable part of every man, woman and child’s life on the planet.

Right, boys? (Because there are no ladies in this group.)

So here’s the dream team head shots and a little background on each below the photos from their bios on the site and elsewhere.

Mark Zuckerberg needs no introduction these days what with all the magazine covers and morning news shows. My mother knows who he is now and my mother can hardly turn on a computer. But let’s try, shall we?: Harvard. Almost Quarterlifer. Co-founder. Flip-flop wearer. Genuine visionary with potentially Gatesian dreams of dominance over all he surveys. I think that about covers it.

Owen Van Natta was COO and is now, as I said above, chief revenue officer and vice president of operations, where he is in charge of important parts of the business, like ad sales and other money-making efforts. Van Natta came to Facebook from his stint at Amazon.com, where he held the weighty title of vice president of worldwide business and corporate development and also was part of the founding team of its A9.com site. With a handsome surfer-dude look, is it any surprise he went to college at the University of California at Santa Cruz?

Chamath Palihapitiya, who was born in Sri Lanka and was raised in Canada, was recently hired as Facebook’s vice president of marketing and operations. The former AOLer, where he was in charge of its instant-messaging division, is widely credited with turning it around. He also did a stint after AOL at the Mayfield Fund, where he waxed on in a section of its Web site about his love of poker, noting that he regularly played, “very high-limit or no-limit hold ‘em games in Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Atlantic City, and have played against many of today’s top pros.” We like him already.

Matt Cohler, vice president of strategy and business operations, was one of Facebook’s earliest hires and feels like the Yoda figure at Facebook to me (he is also in charge of the critical international expansion). A New Yorker, he went to Yale, worked in China, was a management consultant at McKinsey and was also part of LinkedIn’s founding team. And don’t be fooled by the baby-faced looks–he apparently worked for a year as a jazz musician in Europe and, therefore, is a hep cat.

Gideon Yu is also a recent hire at Facebook as its chief financial officer. Like that cat named Oscar who can detect death, Yu seems to have an amazing ability to get a sweet job at the hot Web company of the moment at just the right time. Case in point: He left Yahoo as its treasurer and went to YouTube as its CFO just a month before it sold to Google for $1.6 billion, a deal in which Yu apparently played a key role. Then, on his way to a spot as a junior partner at also-hot VC firm Sequoia Partners, he grabbed the Facebook CFO job in July. I say we watch where Yu goes and follow stealthily behind so as not to be detected.

Is it just me or does Dustin Moskovitz remind you of cuddly actor Seth Rogen from “Knocked Up” with his hair cut short? As Facebook’s vice president of product engineering, he oversees the site’s architecture and more (like mobile strategy and development). More importantly, the economics major shared that Harvard dorm room with Zuckerberg, where they and others created the service (while most other people’s college dorm mates basically drank beer and passed out).

Last but not least, Chief Technology Officer Adam D’Angelo, a longtime Zuckerberg pal. He’s in charge of keeping Facebook from breaking apart as it grows, kind of like Scotty in “Star Trek.” But there’s no warp drive that can save the site from all those surly college students and surlier Silicon Valley types if it all went kerflooey. His Facebook bio says the computer-science grad from the California Institute of Technology was one of the “top 24 finalists in the Topcoder Collegiate Challenge, which tests the ability to design and implement complex algorithms in a timed environment.” Color me impressed, even though I have no idea what that means.

In any case, I look forward to meeting you one and all.