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!
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.
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.
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
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...
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
> "..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!
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.
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.