Slashdot Mirror
Peter Quinn Explains his Resignation
JSBiff writes "Peter Quinn, former CIO of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, has given an interview to Pamela Jones over at Groklaw, regarding the people, companies, and events surrounding his resignation. He spins an interesting tale of Microsoft, money, and the politics of technology." From the article: "Now the folks that have say here do not know me from a hole in the wall and the funds were for projects that were totally unrelated to ITD. I clearly had set the priorities for the Bond but this funding is for projects like a new Taxpayers System, new Registry of Motor Vehicles system, etc., all projects desperately needed by the citizens of the Commonwealth. Eric Kriss and I always had a goal of making IT 'a'political and now it was rapidily becoming a political football of the highest magnitude. I took this job in the hopes of making meaningful and institutionalized IT reform. All the previous efforts were about to be for naught as political payback." We discussed Quinn's resignation last month.
Is that a goa'uld name?
Remind me, are we for or against this guy!? :)
I'll give him alot of credit for his perceived honesty in the interview. He seems to have come clean on why he was unable to be successful in his goals, and on the surface he seems to have noble intentions.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
Despite the globe articles making it seem like he resigned for bring a crook, this story is a very very interesting one about the power of money / lobbey in politics.
You had comittees and senators and groups who had never paid attention for a second to this space going absolutely crazy about it. One of the hearings it was quinn and his lawyer and like 8 people opposed to him.
Also, politics is irrational. They proposed doing things they had lectured people not to do before.
I suspect it drives out good folks (federall and national) when you get so much political influence, and all that are left in beuracracies are real beauracrats, who just want the job.
Facinating.
Not for nothing in German is City Hall called the Rathaus (yes, I know, I know, it's a feeble joke.). But all too often the rats are on the outside trying to get in.
Pining for the fjords
DOC = MS-word ...
ODF = KWord, OOo, AbiWord,
stop trolling, please
I applaud Quinn for trying to straighten out the IT mess that is state government. There may come a time where professional competence trumps political maneuvering here, but apparently, that time is still far in the future.
It seems to this user that the pace of Microsoft releases is increasing (to once a year), and support time for the older formats is decreasing. While I understand that it might be fun to embed Java objects and streaming voice and video in Word documents, it really has no relevence to me, and I doubt to many (most?) users. Certainly not at the state government level, where tables, charts and images are about all you need, and these were handled perfectly well in Word'97 (as they are in OpenOffice). Now, given a choice between paying annually for a new revision of MS Office, and paying a competent Unix/Linux IT guy to administer a bunch of Linux desktops, I'd vote for the latter. I'm thinking I'd get more for my tax dollar.
I'm shocked that politics is involved in government decisions. Shocked!
---
The key is to have the government do as little as possible. Then you can make your decisions, and I can make mine. When you decide for yourself, it's a personal question, not a political one. When the government decides, it's always going to be political.
This is the same issue as "decency" filters on (government) library computers. Politics decided that one too.
The only way everyone gets what they want is by taking it out of government hands.
I have no doubt in the world that Microsoft has an OD filter for MSWord which they could release through Office Update at any instant they wish. They just need a good enough reason to do so.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It seems that Quinn was the person that wanted to introduce open document formats in Mass. What happened is that certain senators started cutting the MASS IT budget to the point where the MASS government could not spend anything on IT unless they got the ok of a special commission of senators.
Quinn felt sure that he was the reason the senators were cutting the IT budget. He felt that the whole state was being punished because of him. He believes that the state urgently needs new computer systems to take care of their records (these systems being completely unrelated to the open document controversy) and they will not get them because the senate is cutting the budget.
Since he did not want to see the state and his colleagues in IT getting screwed because of him, he decided to quit.
I have the greatest sympathy for IT/CS people who dislike "politics" and try to avoid it in their jobs. This guy, though, had a job in the GOVERNMENT. How can he feign outrage that politics became involved?
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Damn government, always getting in the way of the small businessman!!
At least now you have the experience to work with the government, IT vendors & administrators.
You will know the ups and downs of using Office and OpenOffice and have a good idea where to turn for assistance.
Your skills will be in high demand wherever you end up, and you will probably be a lot better off mentally and financially.
Best of luck to you.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Quoting original poster: "Now, given a choice between paying annually for a new revision of MS Office, and paying a competent Unix/Linux IT guy to administer a bunch of Linux desktops, I'd vote for the latter. I'm thinking I'd get more for my tax dollar."
Cost of software is an issue, and certainly an important one.
More important, however, is accessibility and usability of government records. If important data and memos about an issue of today are locked up in a proprietary format which almost certainly won't be completely readable by the then current version of Office software in 2020 and beyond, then this is a real loss for all concerned! Moreover, citizens shouldn't have to own and use a particular piece of commercial software to be able to read documents which their own government produces. That's just plain wrong if there are simple and straightforward alternatives.
Years ago there was a confrontation with my school district and the state involving contracts for Mac computers. We had always had Macs in the library, computer lab, and classrooms. When it came time to buy new computers, consultants advised our school to get PC's, as most students coud not bring projects home from the Mac lab to their PC. The state reps got rather angry, stating the amount of money they recieve from Apple, and the great discounts they get. The PC switch went ahead anyway... with a few bucks going to a separate Mac computer lab.
End result? The PC's the district could afford were outdated before they even arrived, unable to efficiently run even OEM programs provided with them. The Mac lab had few computers and a separate network, and were the only boxes that could run the grade tracking software (provided and required by the state), so the teachers were frequently on them. So hearing that good old MA (48th ranked state in School technology integration at the time of that incedent) is backwards on IT again. Hopefully within a decade or so my town records won't just be in paper form anymore.
Bury me in mashed potatoes.
IT has had a problem for its entire lifetime of thinking that computing and networks are above politics, that access by the people would somehow improve democracy.
It's had the opposite effect. Computers and networks are tools of calculation and communication, and such things have always been as usable by the forces of politics. It was sheer naievety to believe that they would not be adopted by politicians.
And since such things cost money, no matter how low the learning curve goes, they will be skewed by cost towards those willing to spend money to purchase political power.
So here we are. Managing the very tools that will be used to enslave us if we allow them to.
Because in the end, our only protection against the embargo of our freedoms by those who concentrate power in themselves for penurious goals is to exercise them at all necessary pain to ourselves.
Get off your ass and vote. And vote for the good person, not the one who promises you the shiniest toys.
Man, that program is terrible.
That is all.
Actually, Lao Tzu did that about 2,500 years ago. Problem is, politicians don't get philosophy ;)
Surely you mean then that government run emergency service should be run by politics... Boy don't ever hit 911 if your logic should apply !!!
Are you and I even on the same website? We must be, but I don't know how you came to that conclusion reading the Slashdot blurb, nevermind the actual interview.
He was forcing his employees to use it, unless they were disabled and needed some third-party access software which only worked with MS Office. It wasn't like the state was making MS Office illegal or something. They would still accept Word and other document formats.
Also, ODF wasn't the only format they were using. PDF was another.
I don't think it can be. Anything that people stake their careers on becomes political to some degree. After all, when people realize that technology decisions cause their earnings potential increase/decrease they start to care all of a sudden. They start to become activists. Next thing you know, tech debate looks a lot like policical debate.
Maybe I'm just stupid, but I just went back & re-read the interview. Quinn seemed cool, calm and collected. Not outraged or vengeful. Since there's no "outrage" that I could see, there was none to be feigned. I have seen a lot of feigned outrage in AC posts on this topic from MS shills, however. Basically, they seem to be saying that there is only choice, if MS is the only choice. Bye, I think I'm gonna go feign interest in MS-VISTA and Office 12. Please don't get outraged.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
When people say "actually getting off your ass and doing what you are expected to do IS USELESS", they need to follow up with "so, instead, do $X".
You didn't do that. Thus, it seems you are one of the teeming masses of idiots who project "Oh, I'm too smart to work with the system, and you're too stupid for doubting me simply because I don't tell you what my super duper idea is to get things done for reals".
So pony up a solution or fuck off and die. Useless cynicism just gets in the way of everyone else.
From a government records manager and archivist point of view, his stance makes sense. Archives must be accessible in the future. Proprietrary formats are anathemas to government records and archives.
he effectively stuck his hand into a political bea nest.
Bea Arthur?
MS XML formats were to be available within 1 year of his decision.
;-)
problem sovled?
don't know
however, you can guarantee there will be a slew of readers that will pop up for it, once it is available.
migrating from current formats to MS's XML format is a far more practical solution for handling their 1M+ documents.
furthermore, you don't have the same transition problem that you would have if you migrated to a completely foreign standard.
plus, let *office and OO implement MS's format.
heck, they could probably do that within a week
Quinn felt sure that he was the reason the senators were cutting the IT budget. He felt that the whole state was being punished because of him. He believes that the state urgently needs new computer systems to take care of their records (these systems being completely unrelated to the open document controversy) and they will not get them because the senate is cutting the budget.
Does anyone know which Senators? I'd say they're prime candidates for replacement next election cycle, if not actually being taken to with pitchfork, torch, tar, and feather.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
and not polititions who have no idea about IT.
The same is true of just about any government decisions, governments should let the experts in the field make decisions about which is better.
For example, when the USAF was buying the new fighter jets (the one where boeing and someone else were competing), the government did the smart thing and let the USAF decide which fighter was the better one (in terms of performance, purchase price, running cost etc etc).
The same should apply here. Let the IT guys decide which systems are best for the MA government departments.
But what if they don't feel like it?
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}