Slashdot Mirror
Should the United States' New CTO Really Be a CIO?
CurtMonash writes "Barack Obama promised to appoint the United States' first Chief Technology Officer. Naturally, the blogosphere is full of discussion as to who that should be. I favor American Management Systems founder and former IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti. Richard Koman thinks it should be one of the better state CTOs. John Doerr, going in a different direction, thinks it should be his partner Bill Joy. We can bandy names back and forth all month, but first a more fundamental question needs to be answered: What do we need most — a get-things-done CIO (Chief Information Officer), or a more visionary true CTO? I think it's a CIO, and based on his campaign statements it appears Obama agrees. Management of government IT is a huge, generally unsolved problem, and we need somebody deeply experienced to have a fighting chance. Of course, that doesn't preclude recruiting a visionary CTO in addition, but the highest priority is a CIO. What do you think?"
Only Linus can do it. He's a visionary, he has good project managements skills, and he's not afraid to tell it like it is. Everyone else will be a corporate shill more interested in funneling money back to their own products.
We need Linux and we need Linux.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Since this position is pretty much new territory for the government, and since there will likely only be a single position created, it will probably end up being a hybrid CIO/CTO position anyways. As for who it should be, the Rossotti suggestion seems fairly reasonable. My father has worked for AMS for the past 20+ years on a number of government contracts. The one thing he always comes back saying is how screwed up and redundant a lot of the setups are--it's layer upon layer of hackjobs just to get the various systems to talk to one another. Rossotti is well aware of the current state of technology affairs within the government. I'm sure there are plenty others like him, but he is definitely someone who would be in a position to help clean up some of the mess that's there.
This guy's the limit!
How does the next president dare rely on Washington politicians to work with him in Washington! I'm so disappointed in Obama, I thought he would have picked the members of his administration out of Washington. I had Loompaland in mind.
Damn Obama for not having a grudge against most of the governing political world. There goes my dream of the first anti-Washington government..
You just got troll'd!
Yay! I say we need more ideological nuts in the White House!
You just got troll'd!
I agree. His first order of business once sworn in should be relocating the center of government to Tulsa. That'll show em!
This guy's the limit!
We already have a CEO (Chief Executive Officer), we just voted him in ;-)
You just got troll'd!
Knowing the way politicians think, the obvious candidate would be the recently retired, and possibly available, Bill Gates. I can't think of anyone I'd like to see less though. Anyone know if Obama &co are clued in on techie issues?
I hear Bill Gates might be looking for a job...
Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
Nah, what you guys need is a better technology visionary, not some super sysadmin
--exa--
RMS might not be the choice, but it should be someone with vision. Tech should not be about record companies suing customers to maintain an outdated business model, stupid software and business process patents, paranoid monitoring of citizens, outsourcing jobs to cheaper countries, etc. CIOs seem to promote such things.
We need to get back to kids being excited about tech, folks in a garage or dorm room creating a product, the Internet being a fun place, etc. Bill Joy seems to be more in line with this. Some CIO or whatever from a company that just kluges together overpriced systems doesn't seem very enlightened to me.
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
In Wired, Issue 8.04, April 2000, Bill Joy wrote:
"It is most of all the power of destructive self-replication in genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics that should give us pause. Self-replication is the modus operandi of genetic engineering, which uses the machinery of the cell to replicate its designs, and the prime danger underlying grey goo in nanotechnology. It is even possible that self-replication may be more fundamental than we thought, and hence harder--or even impossible--to control. The only realistic alternative I see is relinquishment: to limit development of the technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge."
This sort of hysterical Ludditism is all too alive and well, and Bill Joy is (or has been) a Luddite of the first order with regards to genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence.
Unless he has seriously revised his stance, if Bill Joy becomes Obama's "Technology Czar" (what a stupid title "czar" is) we can look forward to a world where the most promising technologies are banned or severely curtailed in the US, with a high probability that international treaties will be pushed down the worlds throat to make the ban universal. At best, such technologies will be developed in China, India, and elsewhere (and at least some people will reap the benefits). This is IMHO, not the kind of person we need setting US political policies as regards technology.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I think the digital TV mandate is a GOOD thing, digital TV allows you to put more data in the same spectrum (or the same data in less spectrum) and frees up the valuable space used by analog TV in the UHF/VHF spectrum for other uses.
I just wish the FCC et al were more vigilant in enforcing the "all TVs sold must have digital tuners" rule (or whatever it is) so that companies like Best Buy and Walmart couldn't dump dirt cheap analog 4:3 CRT sets on unsuspecting consumers (who are going to need to buy converter boxes to make those sets work with digital TV)
Although I somewhat agree, you have to remember that he is in Washington. Even though he wants to change, Washington doesn't. Therefore it may prove important that he choose people from within to create that change. I have a wait and see attitude with Obama.
All points of time and space are connected.
Seriously. Plus, I don't think Stallman would take too kindly to a bath, a shave, and a haircut. It'd be like trying to hold a cat under water.
John Romero?
*ducks*
So in a world where governments are trying to effectively monitor every part of your daily life, and are mainly held back by incompetence, do you think it's a good idea to have some body in charge who actually knows what they are doing ?
CURSES! Foiled by acronyms again.
CTO often implies oversight of science as well as technology. This would be a very bad thing. The person in charge of IT, who makes technology recommendations to the FCC, and who advises the president on the future of computer technology should not be the same person who is in charge of the NIH, NSF and is advising the president on things like particle physics (and visa versa).
For such a CTO you need to make sure they are NOT just a information technology person - the real growth areas for the future are all outside IT. You need someone with a broad viewpoint and the ability to see the connections across widely varying areas. You also need them to be able to see consequences and how things will play out in future. An IT person is probably one of the worst picks you could make, too myopic.
... when you want a CTO... you select a CIO?
I guess you also take strawberry ice cream when you want chocolate?
Maybe you should first find out what you want, and then find the person who can get it, instead of the other way around.
And that's why you are just a "pundit" (aka. consultant), and no real leader.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Also remember that he has relatively little experience in Washington, and to get things done in Washington he is going to need people with contacts and context in that environment. Most good presidents are really good presidents because they know everything and know how to do everything, it's because they surrounded themselves with people who collectively knew all the things they needed to know. One of those things they need to know is how to get things done in Washington.
That's something that may be of particular importance depending on how the Democrats in Congress want to try and use him. They may be under the impression that he is their new young puppet. It will be interesting to see.
What a long winded and rambling question that really tries to play up the essentially artificial distinction between a CTO and a CIO, two abstract titles that are not particularly informative with respect to what the holders actually do. Most of the distinction seams manufactured by these same people to justify their titles.
That said, it would not be surprising that I suspect it would ultimately be a hybrid CTO/CIO.
I feel sorry for whoever gets the job. If the IRS was difficult to deal with, just think of the entire federal government. Besides the usual problems, he will have to deal with dozens of congressional committees for funding and the authority to make changes.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
We already have a candidate.
I tried to walk into Target, but I missed. --Mitch Hedburg
Because it's always better to limit someone's choice "for their own good". If I want a $100 TV and a $50 converter instead of a $300 digital model, that's just too damned bad - I'm getting that 16:9 aspect ration whether I want it or not.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
LEO
Can you picture that guy in a suit? It would look a bit off, unless he changed his hair 'style', then he'd look like a new man.
You just got troll'd!
The first thing that needs to be done isn't to select the darling of the blogosphere - but rather to define what the hell a national level CIO/CTO does. What is his authority and how far does it reach? Etc... Etc...
Be careful what you ask for. Centralizing authority mean centralizing control and potentially restricting citizen access to open government. At one point, the Government Printing Office was arguing that it had a constitutional mandate to run all government websites because this was a form of publication. Anyone who ever had dealings with the GPO knows what a disaster this would have been.
Statesman
Hmmm.... I'm thinking either Darl McBride or Carly Fiorina would be prefect picks.
The Chief Information Officer directs not just all information technology, but also all information systems and procedures at the organization. The CIO has control of much more than the machines and their operation. The CIO has control of the org's media relationships, the corporate communications, the "brand ID", and a lot of other details. That power in the White House is much more a part of the Press Secretary and Communications Director offices. It's much more a human-powered bureaucracy than is CTO and the IT department.
That CIO power is not at all what we're talking about. In an org like the White House, most of their business is communications and information. What we are talking about changing in the White House is someone who is on top of technology, whether internal to the White House or the goverment, or external in the nation or the world. That's a much more specific job, that does need a new post, a CTO.
I think that the Google execs who are already hanging around Obama in public will be the ones to select and present potential CTOs for Obama and his exec team to choose from. I like the nation talking about possibilities in public, but I know that the job will be more influenced by the insiders than by website discussions. Some things never change, and maybe they shouldn't.
--
make install -not war
John Scalzi for CTO!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak
Check the resume. He's got the vision thing and the technical chops. Plus he's stepped in educational technology issues, which is a very big deal.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
has been that they're "my way or the highway" IT Nazis who believe that the rest of us are there to make his job easier. Most CIOs I've seen are narrowly focused on their own little empires, rather than on advancing the goals of the organization/business at large. And most of them have relatively little intellectual independence from their vendor base.
God save us from CIOs!
dave
Well, I don't know about you folks. But I think the persons qualifications should be other than a Masters in plant science. It seems our great protector from all things evil feels such a degree is sufficient to deal with technological security issues. Frankly, I think the person should be lower in the food chain than from the Cxx level of management. I am sure we, or most of us can recant many boneheaded decisions made by management types to the consternation of the IT guy who said, no don't do it that way, but management did anyway. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/06/dhs-security-ch.html
My karma is not a Chameleon.
I also have that wait and see attitude. I'm reading all the news and comparing notes with what RonPaul might have done. I was somewhat disappointed to see the strong attraction to Israel that Obama displayed almost immediately after being elected. That doesn't bode well for change IMO.
Yes, there is that whole play along to get along, but with a strong grass roots movement behind him, he is not entirely forced to play along. Simply outing people to the public for not getting on the Obama game plan should cause issues. Now THAT would be change. The kind I'm hoping to see. REAL shit stirring. I'm not holding my breath.
These are early days, but now is when he needs to be getting things moving so that on inauguration day he hits the ground running. He already has influence because he is president elect. While he may not have veto, he will. It's very possible for him to begin shaking and moving in Washington. The thought that since he's the new kid on the playground he will be hindered is foolish.
Oh, and on topic, CTO vs CIO. He should have both. One is Technology, the other is Information. Both are important, linked, and necessary, but the domains overlap only for a small portion of each.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
There must be a position open for Stevie Wonder as well.
I'm only half joking.
Too bad Jaco Pastorius is dead. I'd have written him in for president...
Oh you missed the memo? http://change.gov/
Digital schmigital.
What they are doing is subsidising an INDUSTRY. Why?
As we age, our vision and hearing deteriorate. Why spend
money unless we need to? The spectrum will be SOLD OFF to other industries
and NONE of the money will end up in your or my pocket. We, the People,
have a share in the American resources, not the developers, who typically
rape and run with the profits.
Drill for oil in Alaska, where will be OUR share? Certainly not in our pockets.
Build a huge shopping mall on land 'reclaimed' from public lands, due to a 'perceived' need
for shopping malls. Lobbying and back room deals to allow a few to profit, while the
public is screwed.
We need to look after each other in the broad picture. Lobbys and other special
interest groups are designed to buy influence and are almost totally against the public's
interest.
I only would support lobbies that may benefit ALL people. Lobby for the Aged or infirm(handicapped).
Groups we may all find ourselves in.
Why would you or I wish to subsidise tobacco growers? The list goes on and on. Don't get me started
on grants for 'research'.
The 'airways' are supposed to be PUBLIC in the US, but any change that allows private companies
to profit at the public's expense, is just intrinsically wrong.
> "..addition, but the highest priority is a CIO. What do you think?"
I think it should be a CIO. I also think that CIO should be ready and willing to start rolling out Open Source software in the government everywhere possible to save our tax money and foster innovation. Why do we continue to shell out billions of dollars for proprietary software when there are free alternatives?
The CIO should also be involved (in some capacity) in IT competition, anti-monopoly issues, since it is apparent the Department of Justice doesn't know what the hell it has been doing over the last 20 years.
The job will start off solely focused on the big picture, but after about six months...
Setting: CxO's office - White House basement level
Biden (in doorway): Knock, knock! Hey Steve-o! You in the middle of anything?
CxO (not looking up from PC): Uh, yeah.
Biden: Sorry! This is completely my bad. It'll just take two minutes. We're starting a meeting in the big conference room and can't get the other guys on the video. I know you showed me how before, but could you...
CxO: (voiceover: Dumb f***!) (sighs) Uh, yeah, sure, be there in a sec.
Biden (does a double pistol finger point): Owe you another one, big guy! (exits)
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
On a lighter note the DoD has a CIO http://www.defenselink.mil/cio-nii/ but I think a government wide CIO might not be looking at the same stuff. However, even knowing that such organizations exist takes an insider at this point. I think it's easy for a new president to show up and say we need to create X so we can start doing Y even when there is already a group trying to get that done. Often the problem is people ignoring groups promoting change.
PS: Dammit, when did I start talking like a government drone.
You must be thinking of Eric S. Raymond.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Why not have a CTO and a CIO?
Technoli
I think a government wide CIO might look at more things or rather different things than the DoD CIO, but information sharing, system standardization, etc are all goals that would go a long way to make the government more efficient and keep things and people from getting lost. The end result may look different, but the new CIO should definitely start off by talking to this guy, and people like him.
I think it should really be CIO. You need someone in charge of all of those tubes. I nominate Joe the Plumber.
> Anyone know if Obama &co are clued in on techie issues?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4RRi_ntQc8
Obama would NEVER do that to us.
That's like nominating my dad. Sure, he has over 30 years of experience in the Computer Industry as an engineer, but none of those years is in the past 10.
CIOs have always been clueless.
They're using their grammar skills there.
A CEO who knows nothing about running a business. Might as well get a CTO/CIO with the same qualifications.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20011203
People who have cable TV aren't affected.
.. think of the poor people'.
A converter may cost $60, but the government is giving away $40 coupons, up to two per household. I got one, plugged it in, and got over 30 channels in crisp, clear video. Only one was poor quality.
Getting rid of the HDTV mandate would be just another case of someone wanting to 'dumb down' America to it's lowest denominator. 'Oh
Fuck 'em. If they can't afford $10 for a converter, maybe they shouldn't be wasting their time watching TV.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Edit: Most good presidents AREN'T good presidents because they know everything...
Please kids, don't post on Slashdot before coffee.
The FCC did just fine. TV stations were required to be digital 2-3 years ago. It was the media companies allowed to push HDMI and the Broadcast flag at -2 years to flipping the switch that caused the problem. Because the FCC almost mandated every digital TV made for the first 6 years of the conversion process obsolete! Congress approved the time table almost 10 years ago, and the original deadline was moved out 2-3 years.
The FCC could have pushed up the deadline for electronics though. They made the Digital only TV sales set to January/February of '07 neatly allowing an entire Christmas shopping season of cheap non-digital sets to be sold... somebody was asleep at the switch on that one and it should have been July 6 months sooner. They also dropped the ball on the tuner boxes disallowing any digital outputs to protect sales of expensive HD sets. That meant that no converter boxes on the market prior to early '08 met the requirements of the law and now we're way behind on adoption.
We need someone who can balance the roles of both a CTO and CIO as described.
You can't get anything done in this country without compromising. Look at California proposition 1A. We'd finally build a high-speed rail line, but it isn't the most advanced technology - the plan is to use proven technology. If we had planned for a maglev line, it would have given the conservatives too much ammo to shoot it down as a "visionary fantasy".
I think there should be a cabinet position, The Secretary of Science and Technology. Put the EPA, NSF, etc. under that department. One of the key positions would be Undersecretary for Information Services (who would be like a CIO) Of course the first time we get another republican in the white house they'd probably pick Sarah Palin to be the Sec of S&T. Oh well.
-- QED
Given the position will be at a very high level, someone who's more visionary than practical (at navigating the government side of it) would be a good choice. In fact, someone who's mired in the day to day problems of managing technology in government (whether on the contractor side or the government CTO/CIO side) might see limits more than opportunities. So hire someone from government IT management and you will get government IT management.
However, there are enough people in government that come up with pie-in-the-sky solutions, insisting that all solutions be buzz-word compliant without really understanding the ramifications in terms of time or cost, or if some solutions are even ready for prime time. Visionary can translate into unrealistic (especially in environments that are governed by a slew of regulations that are not common in the private sector.)
In the end I think it's the actual person hired that will be effective or ineffective. What I don't want to see is someone who has the same answer all the time for the same problems. In other words all they know is buy from this vendor, implement with this contractor, insist on these "standards" and you're done.
The most disturbing pattern I've seen in some agencies is to use IT contract management as a dumping ground for people who can't do the core job of the agency. I would like to see someone who cleans up IT contract management (and let's face it - almost all government IT is managing a contract while an outside contractor does the actual work).
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
Creating a federal CIO/CTO will *ensure* - absolutely and positively - a Windows monoculture.
Brett
I think that David Shaw, founder of D.E. Shaw, would be a very good choice for either position. His background is in computer science, yet he is a true renaissance man -- after building one of the largest hedge funds in the world (you've probably noticed the recruiting ads on /. by now!), he is working on building the world's fastest protein folding computer.
The man is truly a genius, and undoubtedly has knowhow. I think he'd be a great candidate. He also seems to be quite humble, I went to one of his talks on molecular simulations recently.
Somehow, I'm less worried about the Government CTO (though they're still important) as I am about the new Copyright Czar. What will we do if he picks some ex-RIAA flack? I know that Lessig is close to Obama, so I can only hope that he gets good advice.
Personally, I'd ask William Patry. He's more of a moderate, but that's why his choice would be politically safe. He's also one of the world's foremost experts on copyrights, so that's another plus. But because he's no fan of the MAFIAA's expansionist view of copyright, we could at least make sure that they can't use the office for evil even while we would be able to head off any other nominees because pretty much nobody could be as qualified as him.
At least, that's my thinking.
But if we consider his pick for Chief of Staff, Rahm(bo) Emmanuel. Steve Ballmer might fit in better. Both are well known for having violent tempers.
-- QED
Not true. he CAN shake up all of washington and get the people to turn on every congresscritter in washington like rabid wolves if he plays it right.
"Fellow americans, your congress men and women want you to fail. they are against everything that I promised and are fighting AGAINST YOU.
Please, every one of you, call your congress represenative, write them ,fax them, tell them they had better do the job you hired them for or else."
That coming from the president's mouth, on national TV will be every politicians nightmare. If he continues to rally the public behind him, all of senate and house have no chance at all. If he can enrage the populace AS the president.. how thing in washington get done will change overnight.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I think letting them have NTSC turners is great. just require a $500.00 fine to any TV set that does not have an ATSC tuner in it and sold without a clear document that says, "THIS WILL NOT WORK AFTER FEB 2009" in big bold letters. and signed by the purchaser with them getting a copy.
That will fix Worst buy's wagon fast.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Everything and nothing. I've read job descriptions from both that read the same. So first someone needs to clarify the role and responsibilities of the job. And how would this differ from any technology advisor (of which there are many.)
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
I'd want to see Steve Wozniak do it, but he definitely would need someone to run political interference and do the necessary head banking and arm twisting...
Dean Kamen? Hmm... no.
I know, how about Mr. Wolfram? Model government as a bunch of cellular automata..
You think he would do that when it's his own party in charge of congress?
Yup, Washington culture has been a disaster for IT issues. Even going beyond the broader policy issues of visas and crypto, every federal-run IT project I'm aware of has been a disaster. Where would I have a CTO start? With everyfuckingthing possible about OUR PATENT SYSTEM.
Back when I got mine, you could do your research just fine by getting your ass to any federal depository library and just putting in your time or, like me, heading off to D.C. and just going through plain old paper copies of patents in cardboard boxes (called "shoes" as it happens). It was low tech and unglamourous. Just like paper ballots. And just like those ballots, it worked. Since then we've had decades of b.s. and staggering amounts of government money has been blown. Oh, and btw, the typical cost of getting a patent, which in my day was about three thousand dollars, has risen to over twenty. You wonder why large corporations now file almost all the patent applications? That answers your question right there.
Y'all around here know that I'm passionate about many tech issues. High speed rail. LEDs. Construction techniques. Netbooks. Human advancement into space. I would be delighted to see a competent move by the government to address any of those. But first, let's fix the one basic component of the federal government that's supposed to determine who controls ALL of those technologies.
I apologize for "yelling", but this issue is utterly essential and /. never addresses it whatsoever.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
Steve Jobs would be ideal for the job given that he knows the trends better than anyone else. What the top CIO/CTO dawg in government will need to do is fuel the future by exploiting the trends. Of course, in this regard Ray Kurzweil would be a goood choice too.
Actually, that sounds like a great idea. For a deputy secretary post with some public relations responsibilities.
Linus Torvalds has always made it clear, afaict, that he really doesn't want to be bothered with much of how the world works or why, just like many good programmers I've known. You're right, he's turned out to be a brilliant project leader. But it seems to me that much of how he's done that is by having the discipline to remember what does and does not appropriately get addressed by him.
He's spent over a decade now getting extremely good at herding cats. He might be wonderful in partnership with Al Gore who, contrary to the bullshit jokes I still see around here, was doing quite well at his IT initiatives during the Clinton years. But as CTO? I not only doubt that he knows enough, I simply don't think that he's tempermentally suited to the job.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
Bruce Sterling has some, let's say, Texan attitudes but overall he's proven himself to have a better grasp of an amazing range of technological issues for a hell of a long time now than just about anybody. The idea of a CTO who not only wrote both Heavy Weather AND Worldchanging, AND has been active in actual meatspace political organizing and organizational activities sure as hell appeals to me.
The more I think about this the more I like it. BRUCE STERLING FOR CTO!
F*ck; I may just go out and register the domain.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
You might be surprised what the promise of the right political plum can do, even to a longtime sartorial nebbish. Though, admittedly, attempts to clean up Stanley Aronowitz never quite took.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
You don't need computers to be a CIO or a CTO. The guy in charge of the Sumerian temple record collecting system was a CIO and he had baked clay tablets to deal with. Doubtless he had people who worked out how many tablets a day a scribe could produce, how much storage for new tablets were needed each year, how old tablets needed to be before they were scrapped, how many scribes they needed, and when a scribe took an ox-cart of confidential tablets home with him and then accidentally left them at an inn, he had the offending scribe impaled on a spike. That's the CIO job.
The CTO meanwhile was investigating this new material called "papyrus", found out that the range of things you could put on it was much greater for a given weight and volume, and started to produce plans for a completely new server farm - sorry, records store - based on papyrus. He would have to consider a new training system for scribes, a new encoding for data, and probably a method of illumination of the scriptorium that didn't use oil lamps, since the new material was flammable. There would be many technical problems to solve before all the production and warehouse records could be moved to the new system.
I can also give you a Gutenberg analogy - the monastic CIO was organising the scriptorium and ensuring that the Biblical copying was as accurate and speedy as possible despite human factors while the CTO was talking to Herr Gutenberg about this "Press" thing he was copying from the Chinese, and how it would semi-automate the production of Bibles.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?programId=8951&channelId=-14501&ooid=18177&contentId=12854&pageTypeId=8199&contentType=GSA_BASIC&programPage=%2Fep%2Fprogram%2FgsaBasic.jsp&P=XAE
At the cabinet level, we need a visionary.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
A, more accurately, a CEO who over the last two years built a large nationwide business from the ground up, demolishing all the competitors in the field.
People who understand about pipes AND tubes.
I dont see Obama as a "party" guy. He is president now. There is NOTHING they can do to him so he can throw all their butts under the bus without repercussions.
Honestly, if the man has the balls to root out the corruption that is rampant in the DEM and GOP parties as well as make life hell for every dirty senator and Representative then he would get the reelection locked in HARD.
Most people know that their politicians are dirty, if he stands up and shines light directly on the dirty ones and airs all of congresses laundry for all to see, they cant do anything to stop him...
Except for maybe a shooter on the grassy knoll.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Or you can go to Best Buy and get a $129 TV.
(a) a leader who knows how to spend money on technical infrastructure (not just IT but all technical infrastructure),
(b) an uber-geek who knows how to find out if the money is worth spending on something, and
(c) a re-activated ARPA to spend it.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
IT is an important issue, but I d think there is plenty of non-I T to warrant a real CTO.
Solar energy, wind energy, "clean" coal, carbon sequestration, biofuels, hybrid and electric cars, nuclear energy, the hydrogen economy - all issues that are likely to play a huge role in the coming years. And that's just in the energy sector alone!
Add to that things like GMO's, unregulated and unresearched chemicals in consumer goods (bisphenol-A, anyone?), adulterated or contaminated foods, NASA, space commercialization, you name it...
You need a "Renaissance man" to be able to talk coherently on all those widely different areas of expertise, not just a computer wiz.
Management of government IT is a huge, generally unsolved problem
I don't think the point of a new cabinet member is to oversee government IT...
Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
Although I think he should get a promotion for the national CTO job, don't you? Commodore Taco at least.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Before you get too wrapped up in that game, keep in mind one of the things he would do, and has done, differently than Ron Paul is actually get elected. That has some fairly serious implications.
Considering that of the top 3 contenders (Obama, Clinton and McCain), keep in mind that Obama was the least openly pro-Israel throughout the entire campaign. Of course, McCain had to do some serious pandering to the GOP religious base (who manage to both love Israel and be incredibly anti-Semitic at times... I'm always a little baffled there), and I think Clinton just barely summoned the will to not label Obama as an Islamic Holocaust denier... but he still apparently never saw fit to just say he thinks Israel is right all the time about everything.
I also think it's a bit too soon to say he won't shake anything up, or that he isn't going after the corrupted parts of the establishment. He'll have Biden, a senior Senator and somebody who commands a great deal of respect for both his character and experience, presiding over the Senate, and I've been hearing about Rahm Emmanuel as ruthlessly effective and somewhat disdainful of the establishment for a few years now. Frankly, the only person that has been mentioned as a possible member of his administration I'm not so big on is Kerry; I voted for him in 2004 mostly because I thought Bush was running things into the ground (gee, I sure was wrong there...), and I voted to keep him as one of my Senators, but he doesn't impress me as a potential Secretary of State.
I'm just hoping that he shuns George Soros, not because Soros' politics particularly bother me, but because the idea that anyone who is completely unencumbered by the Constituion or even public support has so much control over our political landscape does.
Oh, and my on topic response; I want a lot more detail about precisely what Obama intends the CTO position to entail before I can say whether we want that or a CIO. We don't currently have either, so saying we need both is not necessarily true.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
The fact that Obama recognizes the need for any type of position of this kind is a step forward... or should be. I think that handling information and the more general term of technology needs to be separate things. Many here on /. will think of technology as IT. It profoundly is much more. IT and green energy technology have very little in common, as do IT and many other 'technology' domains. I feel that they must be considered and dealt with separately except where they have overlaps in domain. I feel this way for the two at any level, federal or even small business.
I'm waiting to see what Obama does, and am hoping for the best. Comments you make are salient and accepted.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Rossotti would be a good choice, but why in the world would he want the gig? He wrote a book on how bad the IRS was, and he was in charge of it.
A CEO who over the last two years ignored his promises to stay within a budget, got lots of people to give him money with no guaranteed return, and barely kept it in business. And gets a yearly salary of $240K/year for the rest of his life regardless of how he performs.
Sounds like a scam artist to me.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
System procurement is pretty much a disaster across the board. The FBI and the FAA have sunk many years and many millions into new systems without very much to show for their efforts. The DOD puts out billions of dollars in contracts, but systems show up flawed, late, and way over budget (if they show up at all).
Obama has promised to lower the cost of health care delivery through improvements in IT. The systems at the VA hospitals work, but are largely built on a version of MUMPS, a language designed almost 40 years ago. Getting medical professionals to agree on computerized medical records and systems for processing those records is an extremely tall order.
National security depends on our ability to protect against cyber-attacks, and demands expertise in cryptography, network security, and other issues of authorization and authentication.
We also want to make efficient use of the systems currently in use, as well as employ effective software development processes for maintaining those systems and building new ones. Government-supported systems will last for many years, so they should be built with modern, proven technology. Of course, open source software plays an important role there, preventing the government from becoming more dependent on vendors of proprietary software and systems.
To me, a state CIO might be very good at preparing RFPs and doing competitive review of the bids for large acquisitions. However, that capability would only cover a small percentage of what is needed for the CTO position.
I'd like to see President Obama appoint a CTO with broad technology and policy experience. This person should have worked with industry and with government, and should have good contacts in the research community. The chosen person should be able to sit around the table with Cabinet members and command respect for his or her knowledge and experience. Without that, it becomes more difficult for the CTO to effect change in the different executive departments.
The CTO would probably need to establish an Office of the CTO and hire people with suitable knowledge of the various key scientific and technical fields. We're coming off a period where the public holds scientific and technical knowledge in low regard, so it's essential that the CTO help to restore the reputation and status of the scientific community.
I was listening to NPR a few nights ago regarding this subject, and the consensus among various experts was pretty clear.
Without ex-lobbyists in his cabinet, Obama will have severe trouble moving his objectives through congress.
There is most definitely a conflict of interest, but everyone agreed there were no feasible alternatives, unless of course Obama has a dossier of skeletons in every congressional closet so horrible they'd pass anything he demanded.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
What if we made Lessig the CTO? or Doctorow?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I'm hearing people thinking the CTO will do either or both of two things:
1. Advise the President on new, emerging technology.
2. Advise the President on managing the government's use of existing technology.
Should these really be combined in one person?
RMS would be interesting. I could see him testifying in front of Congress "We have done an extensive study and . . . WAIT A MINUTE IS THIS A DOC FILE. I thought I issued an order that all non free software must be thrown out?!"
and I think all Americans agree that they are urgent problems
While, many, if not most (certainly not all) Americans would agree, the trick is not agreeing on what the problems are, but in what each person is going to give up to provide the funds to solve these issues (especially the debt). Most people are not nearly as hot and bothered to fix these issues once it comes down to how will you contribute today (money). They are too used to receiving without any consideration for the real cost, or when the bill will come due. That is one reason why the current economy is catching so many off guard and sinking so fast. They never wanted to understand what debt does or how a debt based economy works. Those who understood AND prepared have a gold mine of cheap bargain deals in front of them.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
Your post history looks right-libertarian. Y/N?
IMO, the important question is not how much money came from weasels, or even what percentage, but whether you let the flow of money become important enough to subvert your judgment. Torvalds seems pretty robust; Obama remains in the maybe column for another few months.