US CTO Choice Down To a Two-Horse Race

theodp writes "Barack Obama apparently didn't return CmdrTaco's call. BusinessWeek reports that the choices for the first US CTO have narrowed, and it's now a two-horse race between Padmasree Warrior, Cisco's CTO, and Vivek Kundra, who holds the same title for the Government of the District of Columbia. Two very different resumes — which would you advise Obama to pick?" I just know I was #3 on the list.

Comments

Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[Blakey Rat]

Well, Cisco sucks. And the government of D.C. sucks. So if I had to choose, I'd go by whoever was wearing the longest tie last time I met them.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[fm6]

Right, the government sucks, so by no means should you consider working for the government, even if the point of the particular job they're offering you is to make the government less sucky. I guess the suckiness of government is somebody else's problem.

You know, your attitude sucks.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[Captain Splendid]

Mod parent up. Never understood this particular American obsession with tearing down the government and then proudly claiming it sucks. Sounds insane to me.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[rufus t firefly]

Mod parent up. Never understood this particular American obsession with tearing down the government and then proudly claiming it sucks. Sounds insane to me.

Blame Ronnie Raygun. He popularized the idea that "government is the problem", while blowing enormous quantities of money on militarization, possibly in hopes of bankrupting the federal government. Never trust someone to run something when they believe it's a stupid idea to begin with, they'll usually just mess it up.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[KeithJM]

Well, Cisco sucks. And the government of D.C. sucks.

Right, the government sucks, so by no means should you consider working for the government

I won't defend the guy's attitude, but if you RTFS (S = summary), one of the candidates worked for the Government of DC. So he wasn't saying "All governments suck so I wouldn't work for one," he was saying "the DC government sucks so I wouldn't promote one of their C?Os."

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[filthpickle]

I think the phrase "close enough for government work" predates Ronnie "50 megatons hurts bad" Raygun. Which suggests to me that he didn't inspire the feeling.

an interesting aside to this aside...I googled that phrase to see when it first started to be used. There seems to be some sentiment that it used to mean 'work of the highest quality' but got changed to mean shoddy work somewhere along the way. Either way, it's had the negative connotation since at least the '60's.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[Quiet_Desperation]

The problem is that replacing one person, even at the top, never seems to mitigate the suckiness.

The suck is spread wide and deeply entrenched, which is not nearly as fun as it sounds.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[mark72005]

Quit worrying people. Tomorrow at the stroke of noon, all our problems end. Everyone will love everyone. Our savior will fix the economy with a wave of his hand. The gubment will start paying my mortgage. All conflicts around the world will cease. Mini-golf scores will be way down. Bowling scores will be way up. And we'll have the most excellent waterslides of any civilization we communicate with.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[mark72005]

We have been jaded by a lot of experience interacting with our government.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[mark72005]

haha. I love how an explanation of CmdrTaco's preferences is not trollish, but rather, offtopic.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[FireStormZ]

"Blame Ronnie Raygun"

Oh lol, how original...

"He popularized the idea that "government is the problem"

Actually that idea was popularized by the founding fathers who knew that Government sucked so bad that it needed a leash (B.O.R) and that the 10th was needed to keep the federal government in its place. Having lived in two very Different states (NY and Minnesota) I can tell you tat some government suck less (Minnesota) than others (NY) but given the fact the states are to be laboratories of democracy the federal government almost always sucks.

"militarization, possibly in hopes of bankrupting the federal government."

Horse manure, link or not its still horse manure. RR was trying to bankrupt the Soviet government not the US government something he successfully did.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[Roxton]

"He popularized the idea that "government is the problem"

Actually that idea was popularized by the founding fathers who knew that Government sucked so bad that it needed a leash

Uh-huh. You do realize that one of the first actions of our founding fathers was to buy up state debt to establish national credit, right?

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[FireStormZ]

"Uh-huh. You do realize that one of the first actions of our founding fathers was to buy up state debt to establish national credit, right?"

And what was done with that credit... oh yea they were building up a national defense...

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[WCguru42]

The government really began to stink it up when it became possible to make a career out of being a politician. Back in the day, and I mean way back when, work in the US government was considered a service to the country and not a means to make oneself rich. The combination of capitalism and government was a terrible idea and there needs to be some reform to change the wealth in the political system. Just my personal opinion.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up. Never understood this particular American obsession with tearing down the government and then proudly claiming it sucks. Sounds insane to me.

It's a tradition that dates back to 1776.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[steelfood]

I'll accept the idea that the government is the problem, only if it means getting rid of government-sanctioned monopolies (IP) and government-sanctioned non-existent individuals (corporations).

If a government exists, it has to do its job regulating, taxing, and doling out benefits. If it doesn't exist, then it should not be doing anything. Following any intermediate path is just a method for the powerful to remain in power.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[FireStormZ]

"That's true, the founding fathers fought a revolution against bad governments and once they ousted the British they invented the monarchy and named George Washington the ruler of the land and all our presidents since then have been his descendants."

Actually they revolted against a powerful government which was active in peoples every day lives and created a weak one which should seldom be seen..

"Also true, the soviets were doing so well under communism it seemed no one could stop them. Only the keen intellect of Ronald Reagan was able to find a way to undermine that fundamentally sound Marxist economy."

In the late 70's people believed the US would be crushed and the Soviets were not doing as badly as one might think. They did have a huge amount of oil and natural gas, the attitude among many were that they were a healthier economy than us..

"The founding fathers fought against unchecked hereditary power and created the government you hate so much. Communism defeated itself. Take some of those trickle down dollars and buy a clue."

Unchecked... Umm House of commons/lords means anything to you? The monarchy in England was under check for nearly a half millennium before the revolution.

The founders fought against a lack of representation *not* against hereditary rule. Many, *MANY*, people wanted George Washing to be a king in a constitutional monarchy not much different than the English monarchy and anyone who has studied Franklin knows that until he was humiliated in England by his enemies he was quite content to stay a part of great Brittan on the condition of representation and equality with English citizens.

Before you chastise others by telling them to 'buy a clue' maybe you should read a book..

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[Creepy]

Don't get "the government" mixed up with government jobs - they are not the same.

"The government" is about management - how well the administration is doing, how efficiently it works, etc. How long did you wait for a passport or at the DMV, for instance, are measurements of government management performance.

Government jobs are about employment conditions - in many cases, 8 hour mandated days (there are exceptions such as teachers), pensions, bonuses, lots of holidays, and few layoffs. My grandpa had the one of the two jobs in his small town during the great depression - he was Postmaster and mail carrier. The other job? Bar/hardware store (yes, in the same building - population was under 100).

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[FireStormZ]

lol Ive posted on *three* threads in the past 10 days... If I am on *every* article you read I have my own personal stalker..

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[bondjamesbond]

We (the US) *already* have the most excellent waterslides of any civilization.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[Jawn98685]

You may attribute this to Ronald Reagan and his political cronies, for it was in Reagan's first inaugural address that the phrase "...government is the problem..." began to gain traction in the public mindset. The misguided notion that government has no legitimate role and that "the free market" will, if left unfettered by evil government intervention, will take care of everything.

As we have seen over the last several months, it is the notion that there truly exists "a free market" (which, by definition, includes a well-informed public) that is the problem. Without governmental oversight, markets are manipulated, the public is cheated, and, just as in the early part of the 20th century, a privileged few were allowed to amass staggering wealth at the expense of everyone else.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[FiloEleven]

"Government sucks" is in actuality a great reason to work for the government. It's the same reasoning that gave us the old adage, "If you want something done right, do it yourself." I don't think that's what the poster was referring to, though. He was lamenting that neither of the choices presented are very palatable. Knowing next-to-nothing about either individual's actions, I can't comment on the accuracy of that statement.

My own belief is that it may not make much of a difference who Obama picks because the job description (or lack thereof) is too nebulous for anything profitable to come out of it. What exactly is the purpose of a government CTO? What sort of power is the CTO going to have to force government agencies to do whatever it is that the CTO is going to request them to do?

I can envision the CTO's duty being to streamline data gathering and reporting and to make the data more accessible to the public, a job for which I show support even as a believer in small government. Indeed, Warrior's statement seems to point to something like my description,

"Cisco is committed to working closely with the Obama Administration on their plans to deploy digital infrastructure to grow our economy and create jobs. Smart networking technologies and IT play a critical role in transforming government, energy, education, and health care."

but before we even finish the first sentence she's talking about growing the economy and creating jobs! I would have thought that "making the government less sucky" would include taking advantage of tech to cut back on government spending, and nowhere in our Constitution is government given responsibility for growing the economy. (In practice, as history has shown, government is much better at stifling the economy than growing it, but I digress.)

She then goes on to talk about energy, education, and health care which are themselves overly broad concepts, unrelated to the job for which she is a candidate, and (dare I say) equivalent to Bush's cries of national security and terrorism. Out with the stick and in with the carrot, and the creep of government continues at a steady pace*.

Kundra's blurb gives me a similarly mixed reaction:

Before he moved to D.C., he was assistant secretary of commerce and technology for the Commonwealth of Virginia, where he set up a Web site designed to maximize citizen involvement in the state's procurement decisions. In D.C., he runs his 600-person staff like a startup, experimenting in cloud computing, open source software, social networking, and other cutting-edge technologies.

That website he set up in VA sounds very good to me and is something I would like to see more of. It also sounds like he hasn't done anything useful since he got to DC, but I have only this article to work from. I don't like the word "experimenting" when it involves taxpayers' money without their consent, and I especially dislike it when it's near "cloud computing" and "social networking," neither of which sounds very useful for government to play with.

I predict that this position will end up being slightly more beneficial than the proposed "car czar," another proposed position with a similar amount of detail in its job description.

*Do not misunderstand me: I am confident that each of those men believes he is doing what is best for his country. Both men are also part of the political class and therefore absolutely certain that a body of ~600 nearly-homogeneous individuals wielding legislation can cure all the ills of ~300,000,000 diverse others.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[electrosoccertux]

So because they did this one thing, they must have been pro-big-government? Nevermind the bill of rights? Ha.
Your post may be informative but it is anything but a rebuttle to the GP's post.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[Blakey Rat]

What are you replying to? I didn't say "the" government sucks (in fact, I don't even know which specific government you're talking about-- you seem to think there's only one!) I said the government of D.C. sucks. Now, that's my opinion of course, but it's a far cry from saying "all governments suck" or "the US sucks" or whatever you're imagining I typed.

For the record, I personally am a member of at least 4 governments:
- The City I live in has a government
- As does the County
- As does the State
- As does the Nation (the United States, for the record)
- And arguably you could include the U.N. as well.
(Some people even have a Homeowner's Association, which is basically a more local government than their City.)

I don't think any of the governments I'm a part of particularly suck. Well, maybe Sound Transit.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[Blakey Rat]

Cripes. I never said "the government sucks."

At best, I said "the government of D.C. sucks". Is this like No Reading Comprehension Day on Slashdot? Do people not realize that the city of Washington D.C. has a government which is distinct from that of the Federal Government? WTF.

Some idiot puts words into my mouth and suddenly I'm Anti-Citizen Number 1.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up. Never understood this particular American obsession with tearing down the government and then proudly claiming it sucks. Sounds insane to me.

Blame Ronnie Raygun. He popularized the idea that "government is the problem", while blowing enormous quantities of money on militarization, possibly in hopes of bankrupting the federal government. Never trust someone to run something when they believe it's a stupid idea to begin with, they'll usually just mess it up.

I've worked for government. The reason people thinks it sucks is because it is inefficient and bureaucratic. I've also worked for two Fortune 10 companies. They suffer from much the same issues but at a smaller scale. Even a 100,000+ person company can't compete with the weirdness of policy mazes and pencil pushers that fill the halls of government (at least in the state I worked for).

Having seen both sides I choose Padmasseraseserr....screw it, the cute chick from Cisco. She's industry based rather than career government and she has the last name "Warrior". Come on how could she not be the choice.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Blame Ronnie Raygun. He popularized the idea that "government is the problem" [reaganlibrary.com], while blowing enormous quantities of money on militarization, possibly in hopes of bankrupting the federal government [thenation.com].

Actually, he helped bankrupt the Soviet Union. So yeah, I give him credit for helping free millions from oppression.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[DrgnDancer]

Back in the day, and I mean way back when, work in the US government was considered a service to the country and not a means to make oneself rich.

Uh, when was that? So far as I can tell politics has been a road to wealth and power for at least the majority of politicians since there have been politics. There are exceptions of course, many different time periods have had men that seemed to legitimately be in it to serve their fellow man, but most politicians have been in it for themselves first and their fellow men in some distance of second.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[fm6]

It's not reading incomprehension day, it's you-know-what-I-mean day, which seems to be every day at Slashdot. Somebody expresses themselves poorly, gets misread, and whines about people "putting words in my mouth". Unless you're Pudge, in which case you accuse people of "lying" about what you said.

It may be obvious to you that "government of DC" refers to the people who run DC rather than the federal government. But to most people it sounds like a sloppy way of saying "federal government".

That's especially true because what you meant to say (or say you meant to say) doesn't make a lot of sense. Would you really consider a city a bad place to live just because it has a bad city government? DC may be a sucky place to live, but if so, a sucky city government is probably not the only reason.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[GaryOlson]

The obnoxious AC stalks everyone on ./

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[GaryOlson]

Before you chastise others by telling them to 'buy a clue' maybe you should read a book..

I doubt he will buy a book. Might be better to provide some easy clicky things with pretty pictures to keep him entertained.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[Mex]

Well, you know, you can try to change your government, after all you pay for it.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[billcopc]

It does suck, but it is sadly true.

I wouldn't expect Cisco's CTO to tell a keyboard apart from their own asshole. They are an ugly company with a very messed up business and distribution model. The only thing they will end up doing is make the government buy a ton of useless Cisco gear, just like every other "ex"-CxO.

I personally think the best person for the role would be a non-partisan, non-corporate figure. Whether that's a highly respected professor or one of our familiar FOSS figureheads, that's something I can't decide because I don't know them well enough. It takes an ideas-person, not a money-person. Let the finance folks worry about the money, not the CTO.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[jonadab]

> [Reagan spent] enormous quantities of money on militarization,
> possibly in hopes of bankrupting the federal government

Reagan underestimated the impact of the federal debt on the US economy. It does hurt us, more than he realized, because it undermines the public's confidence in the government and, perhaps more importantly, the currency.

Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure his *goal* was to bankrupt the Soviet economy, by forcing them to spend so much on military stuff, in order to keep up with us, that their economy would not be able to handle it. And that did happen. Their GDP was a fraction of ours, so the impact of all that military spending was far more disastrous for them than it was for us. It was hard on our economy, yes, but it wiped theirs out completely. We won that war without sending a lot of soldiers to their death.

Of course, given what we know now, it almost certainly wasn't necessary. Without all that military spending in the eighties, the curtain probably would have taken a few more years to come down, but it eventually *would* have come down. Even without the military buildup of the cold war, Soviet-style communism is simply not long-term sustainable.

But we didn't know that during the Reagan administration, because almost all of the data were unavailable. At the time, we supposed that the East-European economy was in significantly better condition than was actually the case. We believed capitalism and representative government were better, but we didn't realize how *much* better. As recently as the mid-eighties, a lot of Americans were still worried that communism might continue spread until someone in Moscow would be telling us in Ohio where we were allowed to live, what kind of work we should do, what line to stand in to buy bread, and whether we'd be allowed to visit our relatives in the town down the road on the weekends. By 1990, it had become totally obvious that that was never going to happen.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[Blakey Rat]

It's not reading incomprehension day, it's you-know-what-I-mean day, which seems to be every day at Slashdot. Somebody expresses themselves poorly, gets misread, and whines about people "putting words in my mouth".

I was trying to make a fucking joke. Christ. Lighten up.

And yeah, I don't like to be accused as some crazy anti-government survivalist because:
1) Slashdotters with a big long stick up their fucking ass think I was being totally serious
2) Everybody who speaks English knows the difference between the phrase "government of D.C." and "the Federal Government."

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[WarJolt]

Go with the Cisco girl so that the work will be contracted out. I'd rather have private sector people who know what they're doing working for the government rather than sucky techs working in the government. As long as there are no moral issues no one can argue against private sector work.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[fm6]

It's true, one person working alone can't fix anything. Which is precisely why the pervasive cynicism is self-fulfilling.

A certain politician just got himself elected POTUS almost purely because he convinced a lot of people that he knows how to change all that. Maybe he's full of it, maybe not. But if he actually does what he claims he can do, it won't be through any top-down process. It'll be him and a lot of other people working with him, not for him.

Yeah, I drank the Obama koolaid. Still waiting to see if it stays down.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[fm6]

You seem to be taking your family experience with one job and scaling it up to the whole government. And not a policy job either, or even a civil service job as we now know them. In those days postmaster slots were "patronage" jobs — they were quite blatantly handed out as political rewards. That's why the Postmaster-General was usually the chairman of the President's party. And it's why they finally took control of the postal system away from the presidency and gave it to an independent commission.

In your grandfather's day, the Post Office was a corrupt and inefficient organization. Not a lot your grandfather could do about it, but the problem did get solved on a higher level.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[Mr. Jaggers]

Yeah, check out Grover Norquist. He (and one of his proteges, Jack Abramoff) were instrumental in the early movement to end liberalism in government by simply bankrupting the taxpayers, as well as promoting the hiring of ideologues for key federal administrative positions rather than screening for qualification.

Check out The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank... it's certainly not unbiased, but it's well-sourced, follows the history of neo-conservatism fairly accurately, and nails down all the major sticking points. In fact, he really only editorializes in his opinion of the overall damage caused by the various political attacks our governmental structure has sustained.

Anyway, it's definitely a worthwhile read for anyone striving to understand this past Bush presidency. It casts the past eight years in a different light than that which is portrayed by the mainstream media.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[MrNaz]

Rebuttle?!
What.
The.
Fuck.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that idea was popularized by the founding fathers who ...

....wanted to instil the idea that Government sucked so bad into the minds of the uninformed masses, so that they'd happily accept corporate rule instead.

The English government at the time was one of the most modern, democratic and capitalist in the world.
The American Founding Fathers were essentially just Englishmen that decided they'd rather be collecting their own taxes than paying someone else. They founded the country on English mercantile ideals.

George III had less say in the running of England during the time of the American declaration of independence than Bush had over the running of the USA in the last 8 years.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[FireStormZ]

wow what a hole in the wall post...

"The English government at the time was one of the most modern, democratic and capitalist in the world."

If you live in England, Scotland or NI, then yes... it was no doubt one of the best govts of its day..

"The American Founding Fathers were essentially just Englishmen that decided they'd rather be collecting their own taxes than paying someone else."

It had nothing to do with collection it had to do with the lack of representation. I dont care who collects my taxes but I better have a say in who decides what they are. The fact England wanted to make the American colonies the B^$%& of English trading companies and a big fat pig to suckle taxes out of while Americans enjoyed fewer rights than those in England.

"George III had less say in the running of England during the time of the American declaration of independence than Bush had over the running of the USA in the last 8 years."

George the III also had less say in the running of England than Tony Blair for did a decade whats your point? That America today has strayed from its principles... no doubt there..

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[mabinogi]

Do people not realize that the city of Washington D.C. has a government which is distinct from that of the Federal Government?

If it's anything like the situation in Australia with Canberra, then probably not.

No matter how many times I see "Canberra said," or "Canberra will do X" in Sydney or Melbourne papers, I still go through a brief moment of "WTF does Canberra have to do with it?" or "Why is the ACT Chief Minister making foreign policy decisions?" before it ocurrs to me that they really meant: "The Commonwealth Government"

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[BuddyJesus]

Back in the day, and I mean way back when, work in the US government was considered a service to the country and not a means to make oneself rich.

Back then, only those who didn't need to work for a living (literally aristocrats) could participate in government. Unless you'd like to deny participation in the government to anyone who isn't already rich, there is no alternative.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[Quiet_Desperation]

Meh... I voted for Obama, but I'm not expecting much. This gigantic inauguration already does not bode well. "Irrational exuberance" is a redundant term in my book of cynicism. ;-)

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[rfreedman]

I'd go with Padmasree Warrior, by process of elimination. I've worked with the DC government IT folks - a Microsoft-centric bunch who, for instance, thought that a good method for web application single-sign-on was to pass the user's credentials as URL parameters in a GET, in clear text.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[Blakey Rat]

Yeah, the press in the US is the same way. They shortcut "the Federal Government" by just saying "Washington." The problem is that, in addition to the city named Washington on the east coast, we have an entire state of 6.4 million people out west. But when I specifically say "the government of D.C." it should be obvious to non-morons that I mean the government that manages the area of the District of Columbia, and not the Federal Government.

And, please, idiots in the press? Just say "the Feds." Otherwise, you're just unnecessarily confusing those above-mentioned 6.4 million people for no reason.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[I8TheWorm]

Wow, you must be lacking in history books. "Government sucks" predates even the US, and has a long and proud history. It's sort of why we have our own country here in the states ;)

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[sporkmonger]

The government of D.C. may suck, but I'm pretty sure Vivek Kundra doesn't. He'd be my pick, without a shadow of a doubt. He's a pragmatist, and he doesn't get bogged down in the whole out-of-control requirements document stuff. That said... he's probably the closest thing you can get to a shill for Google, without actually being a shill for Google.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[dwarg]

In the late 70's people believed the US would be crushed and the Soviets were not doing as badly as one might think. They did have a huge amount of oil and natural gas, the attitude among many were that they were a healthier economy than us.

Funny, I could have swore Reagan was president in the 80s not the 70s. In addition, while we knew of their natural resource reserves we also had taken in enough defectors to know what the state of their economy was. The fear the populous had of the Russians had lingered on after the "Red Scare" and savvy politicians knew how to exploit it.

Unchecked... Umm House of commons/lords means anything to you? The monarchy in England was under check for nearly a half millennium before the revolution.

Perhaps you should look into what the House of Lords was, I'll give you a hint the last word is Lords. As for the House of Commons at the time their power was far less than that of the house of Lords, not to mention most (if not all) of that representation still consisted of nobles and those with "old money".

The founders fought against a lack of representation *not* against hereditary rule. Many, *MANY*, people wanted George Washing to be a king in a constitutional monarchy not much different than the English monarchy and anyone who has studied Franklin knows that until he was humiliated in England by his enemies he was quite content to stay a part of great Brittan on the condition of representation and equality with English citizens.

Before you chastise others by telling them to 'buy a clue' maybe you should read a book.

When you say *MANY* people, how many of those people are included in the "founding fathers?" Much of the citizenry wanted a king, but I don't know how many (if any) of the founders did. But I should step back here and say that it is almost always absurd to talk about the "founding fathers" as a singular unit. They were a group of people with many different opinions and ideas. Whenever anyone talks about the founding fathers, they are using them as a vehicle for their own ideas, or some pundit's opinion that they've grafted onto that body.

As for Franklin and book reading, might I recommend to you, Benjamin Franklin: An American Life. It's funny you should bring him up now since he was one of the most vocal opponents of hereditary power among the founders (which is ironic because he secured the governorship of New Jersey for his son while in London, but nobody's perfect). Also, it's interesting you don't mention a book that might enlighten me, do you know of one that isn't pure propaganda? I'd recommend reading to anyone unless it's the latest work of fiction by Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, or Michael Moore in that case you would be better off smoking some crack. It's also funny you'd bring him up just before claiming I don't read since very few people, outside of colonial historians, could claim to have read as much on, or by, Franklin as I have.

Anyway, you refer to the "Hutchinson Affair" and I'm not sure why. I'm sure everyone that fought the British had some revelation or series of them that turned them against the crown at some point, Franklin came to that table later than some others, why does that matter? He always had problems with the parliamentary system but felt confident enough in it to fight for change from the inside, until being insulted by the Solicitor General wounded his pride enough to openly support revolution.

But what does any of this have to do with Ronald Reagan whipping up anti-government sentiment? If I asked you what the 9 scariest words in the English language are, would you know what I was talking about? I would guess that you would, and if so it's because his name is synonymous with anti-government sentiment.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[FireStormZ]

"Funny, I could have swore Reagan was president in the 80s not the 70s. "

Elected in 80 while the soviets were still rolling in Afghanistan, Americans were hostages in Iran, and the economy was still very weak. Many people of the day thought the soviet Union if not more powerful than the US was *at least* an equal.

"When you say *MANY* people, how many of those people are included in the "founding fathers?""

Right because it was only the authors of the constitution that took up arms and not the populous.

"It's funny you should bring him up now since he was one of the most vocal opponents of hereditary power among the founders (which is ironic because he secured the governorship of New Jersey for his son while in London, but nobody's perfect)."

He wa snot against the US staying part of great Brittan for most of his life even up to the point where relations were getting strained. He was a huge believer in the Anglo-American Empire.

"recommend reading to anyone unless it's the latest work of fiction by Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, or Michael Moore in that case you would be better off smoking some crack"

Not a fan of any of their books, I prefer less interpretation and more communication in historical works.

"But what does any of this have to do with Ronald Reagan whipping up anti-government sentiment?"

I did not bring it up, someone else did. My point was that a large powerful *central* government is what Regan was talking about, not government in general. regan catches allot of flak for a misunderstood statement the full quote was:

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem."

Reagan was not panning the office of human government he was speaking about current problems, specifically economic ones, and how the governments hand had a role in cresting them.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[fm6]

Funny, your "joke" sounded like an angry rant. Maybe you should use smilies next time.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[squiggleslash]

So Communism is actually a viable economic model, and would have been OK if it wasn't for that pesky Ronald Reagan?

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[fm6]

What does the inauguration have to do with anything? It's big because a lot of people showed up.

As for "exuberance", irrational or otherwise, what's wrong with it in this context? If Obama actually accomplishes anything (no certainty about that, but let's give the dude a shot) it will be by harnessing the "exuberance" of the public at large. We've had a long period of self-fulfilling cynicism; it's past time we tried the alternative.

Slightly offtopic: "irrational exuberance" was coined by a Fed Chairman whose economic libertarianism led him to rely on pronouncements like that instead of doing his regulatory job. In his case, it was a way of saying "que sera sera".

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[dwarg]

So you link to The Federalist Papers? Essays that advocate the stronger central government of the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation, which placed states rights before federal, was a failure.

Now I think you're right, I could stand to brush up on them, I haven't read them all, but is that really what you wanted to link to? Not to mention it only represents the opinions of three of our founders, but I digress.

After the Constitution was drafted many present were thoroughly disgusted with the compromises therein and were convinced it would be as big a failure as the Articles of Confederation before it. Many were considering not signing the document thus dissolving the convention and with it, most likely, The Union. Benjamin Franklin wrote a speech and gave it to a friend to read to everyone present.

It reflects the founders dissatisfaction with the document, but reassured them of the need for it and the government it would create. Here is a clicky thing if you would like to read it. Here's the final sentence if you can't be bothered:

"On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a Wish, that every Member of the Convention, who may still have Objections to it, would with me on this Occasion doubt a little of his own Infallibility, and to make manifest our Unanimity, put his Name to this instrument."

Everyone present signed that piece of parchment. Not because they believed the document to be perfect, but knowing themselves to be imperfect and had confidence that the government it would create empowered the citizenry shape their government to better govern them. To turn our backs on the government by saying that everything they do is wrong or doomed to failure is another step in the march toward despotism.

Re:Cisco vs. Wash DC?

[leerpm]

There's a short video on the change.gov website where Vivek makes an appearance:
http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/inside_the_transition_technology_innovation_and_government_reform/

I vote other

[wardk]

No Cisco, no gov't hack.

we need credible change

Re:I vote other

[msuarezalvarez]

After 8 (eight!) years of Bush, 4 years of Clinton does not sound that bad, really. Can you possibly argue otherwise?

Re:I vote other

[profplump]

It sounds better I agree. But so does spending the next 4 years with my left leg in a cast.

I'm not saying Obama will be terrible, but it's not really a challenge to be better than Bush, so if that's your only hope for the next decade I'd suggest you consider raising the bar.

Re:I vote other

[msuarezalvarez]

I never said it was my only hope. I was responding to the standard slashdot "You think Obama is going to bring about change?"...

Re:I vote other

[megamerican]

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who helped create Al-Qaeda while under Zbigniew Brzezinski in Carter's Administration. He was very much involved in the Iran-Contra affair. This was enough to stop him from being DCI in 1991, but now it's perfectly fine.

Attorney General Eric holder wrote a brief to the SCOTUS on the DC gun ban and said that there is no individual right to own gun. He was apart of the Clinton Administrations Justice Department when Clinton pardoned all of his cocaine trafficking buddies.

Rahm Emanuel is crazy, a duel citizen of Israel and the U.S. and while in charge of who to give money to in the 2006 election cycle decided to acitvely shun anti-war candidates.

That's just a start.

Re:I vote other

[msuarezalvarez]

You can probably give many more examples...

That does not do much to support the claim that Bush's 8 years and the next 4 will be exactly the same.

Re:I vote other

[2short]

"You think Obama is going to bring about change?"

Probably.

"How's 4 more years of Clinton/Kennedy for you?"

Sounds utterly fabulous; do you really think he'll do that well?

Re:I vote other

[zippthorne]

Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming into being an adequate president. Hopefully, and I had more hope for Hillary producing this, the Obama administration will attempt some folly too great to be ignored, and which will result in a return to glorious split-party gridlock at the mid-term elections.

Remember all the problems with the Government Shutdown?

Exactly.

But my hope is low. Obama feels like a Carter, except without the principles.

Re:I vote other

[ScrewMaster]

You think Obama is going to bring about change?

Ha. The way things are going, I'll be happy if he leaves me some. Change, that is.

Re:I vote other

[quarterbuck]

You are either exaggerating or are mistaken.
USA (Brzezinski or whoever) did not create Al Qaeda. It is true that many Al Qaeda members fought Russia in Afghanistan and that the Afghan Mujahedeens were funded by USA through Pakistan -- But Al Qaeda is a much later group formed in Saudi Arabia (according to Bin Laden against US presence in Holy Land). Very different times, different places.
Rahm Emanual Dual-Citizenship allegation is baseless according to Wikipedia.

Option 6

[IceCreamGuy]

Sorry Mr. Taco, I have to go with the CowboyNeal option here.

How about...

[Improv]

The Iraqi Information Minister? He'd at least be entertaining..

Re:How about...

[mikkelm]

There's no Iraqi information minister here. There are no Iraqi information ministers within a hundred miles of this post.

Re:How about...

[icebrain]

And who would that be? That minister post has not existed since 2003.

That is no whooshing sound you're hearing far above your head... it's just an Imperialist lie!

Why Not OffShore It?

[Black-Man]

Can't they off shore this position to Pune? What better choice for corrupt politicians than to choose Satyam? Sounds like a match made in... whatever.

Cisco Guvmint

[Ardipithecus]

Didn't know either existed.

On the basis that Cisco functions and makes money, while DC is a disaster, Cisco_guy++.

Doesn't matter

[MikeRT]

Either way, the position is going to be mostly a figurehead. Unless Obama delegates some serious executive power over the federal bureaucracy, this will just be a cushy job for the next several years.

The CTO needs to be able to override agency decisions, put mandates on them and punish them for non-compliance. I seriously doubt that Obama is going to go that far. One of the first ones should be to stop the Oracle lovefest, and make it federal policy to stop using Oracle on most federal systems that have less than a few hundred users.

Re:Doesn't matter

[fm6]

Unless Obama delegates some serious executive power over the federal bureaucracy, this will just be a cushy job for the next several years.

I completely agree. But, at the risk of suffering a crisis of cynicism, perhaps you could explain why you're so certain that Obama won't delegate serious power to this position?

Re:Doesn't matter

[teaDrunk]

If the position is just a figurehead and to do inane jargon spouting, CTO candidate 1 has it covered. probably same with the CTO candidate 2 too !
Obama may as well not delegate too much.

Re:Doesn't matter

[erroneus]

He will delegate some power to the post, but only until that position butts heads with a heavy contributor and then that position will be rendered useless. The very moment that person attempts to care about the open format of public records or any other such thing, you will see Adobe and Microsoft trying to get him fired. We saw it in Massachusetts and I don't see it going down any differently in Washington.

Answer is obvious?

[CannonballHead]

If I had to choose between the two, which apparently I would (not that my decision makes ANY difference whatsoever), I'd have to go with the dude from Cisco. He at least has his roots, however good they may be, in a business and not a "cushy government job."

Re:Answer is obvious?

[jellomizer]

Yea but he will make those federal employees actually work hard. They already think they are working hard, But when a guy from the private sector comes in. They run straight to the union... vs. actually just doing the work.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[stoolpigeon]

the dude from cisco is a woman.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[Martin Blank]

Padmasree Warrior is a woman.

Still, I don't trust most people from Cisco any further than I can throw a 6509. A few exceptions aside, their best people seem to leave to form other, more interesting (and ethical) companies. I know that sales people in general are not to be trusted, but Cisco reps seem to have carved their own special niche on that point.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[JoeWalsh]

Dude, that's totally bogus. Chicks can't be warriors.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

The "dude from Cisco" is a woman. But she's not really "from" Cisco, she came there in the past year from Motorola. And my impression is that she didn't do that great a job at Motorola, and I haven't really heard anything worthwhile out of her while she's been at Cisco. So, I'd go with the other dude.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[Anpheus]

Dwight, is that you? Get off Slashdot and sell some paper.

- Jim

Re:Answer is obvious?

[Tubal-Cain]

Well if the answer wasn't perfectly obvious before, it is now.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[ecn5093]

Obviously you have done zero research into these two candidates. To begin with the "dude from Cisco" is a female who used to be CTO for Motorola. Let's take a look at how well Motorola had been doing under her "direction". They are still feeling the ill effects of that. While I know nothing about Vivek, I do know that I would not want someone who has run a historically innovative company like Motorola into the ground!

Re:Answer is obvious?

[Austerity Empowers]

Would you have preferred instead a technologist from AT&T, Verizon, etc? Cisco is the "good guy" by comparison.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[CannonballHead]

Obviously you have done zero research into these two candidates.

Correct. I'm not voting for either one ;) :)

Re:Answer is obvious?

[sm8000]

Even if she's shooting at the walls of heartache? Bang-bang! Maybe we should just write-in Carly Fiorina.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[Valdrax]

Would you have preferred instead a technologist from AT&T, Verizon, etc? Cisco is the "good guy" by comparison.

A) That's a false dichotomy. There are plenty of better companies to choose from.
B) What makes Cisco a "good guy" in comparison? Who do you think it selling repressive regimes the technology to control the internet? Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
C) How about someone competent at management instead of a "good guy" or "bad guy?" Cisco may be an industry juggernaut, but has the name Cisco ever been equated with awesome management in your mind? How about Motorola, which is where she's spent the vast majority of her career?

Maybe it's a knee-jerk reaction on my part, but the "DC brand" is less tarnished for IT in my mind than Motorola's and Cisco's are.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[TakeyMcTaker]

...dude from Cisco. He at least has his roots...

I know Slashdotters don't actually value reading TFA, but +5 Insightful for THIS! From Ms. Warrior's bio at the Cisco site:

"Warrior is also a strong and vocal advocate for women and minorities in math, science and engineering. In 2007, she was inducted into the Women in Information Technology International Hall of Fame, and received the YWCA Metropolitan Chicago Outstanding Woman of Achievement Award."

As a knee-jerk reaction to the summary, I have to admit I was against the Cisco pick, but after reading both biographies I have to admit they're both great choices. I just hope that whoever it is, they can see beyond COTS options, and start promoting innovation on par with DARPA, as well as just catching up with current IT standards.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[ruin20]

Despite popular opinion, there are plenty of hard working people in the government. Problem is we have no mechanism to fire people so when someone screws up really bad where they don't deserve a second chance, there really is no way to get rid of them. So they sit on their thumbs. If you know a government employ who is not hard at work its either because they can't be trusted with real work (either incompetent or too lazy to be trusted with completing the task on time)

The real issue here is that in this situation I would want to see an individual from the private sector because when you work for the government you really don't have metrics on profit. Since the returns on investment are largely intangibles and have little for comparison it is difficult to quantify value. Because of this I want someone who can come in and at least have an idea of profit and value instead of just having to make things better. Even when you do have metrics on the improvement, it's hard to compare actual costs and apples to apples because a lot of costs are hidden in the details. Try finding a comparison for Boston's "Big Dig" for example and compare cost versus vehicles processed by the highway and make a percentage comparison. After that how do you factor in all the congestion that went on during the project? It's all very subjective.

I don't know what all their credentials for the job are and I don't know why they're not pulling someone from the airforce or pentagon who deal with the most high tech and high assurance programs in the government (I'm thinking the working level brains behind AFATDS level system like the Joint Integrated Fire Control System, for the airforce should be plenty competent for this). Some one from a systems engineering background instead of a admin/management background. You want change and solutions hire someone who's actually ran a program that produced a product.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[Martin Blank]

Where I work, we're largely a Foundry shop. Most of our Cisco gear is legacy equipment. A few years back, our network guys wired up a six-story building with a Cisco-designed solution. Everything was fine during testing, but as soon as it went production, with all users going about their daily business, huge latency issues hit. It turned out that the router on the first floor that coordinated traffic for the network was out of RAM and the CPU was pegged. Cisco had only one solution: buy a bigger router (for significant additional expense, even factoring in trade-in value on the installed router). The network team pulled a Foundry router from spares that originally cost less and had less memory than the Cisco that was installed, and the latency went away, with the Foundry humming along at about 20% CPU utilization.

It's not all roses with Foundry, though. We've learned recently that their newest line, the XMR, shipped without the ability to handle multicast MAC. It was deemed to be a less important feature, despite the growth in HA products out there that rely on it. We have had to delay firewall HA architecture changes to wait for this code upgrade, which is still a few months out. Lame.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[Martin Blank]

You're reading what are essentially press releases and deciding that they're qualified from that? One or both might well be the best person for the job, but I can write some pretty glowing words about myself that make me sound like the best fit for the job, too.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[boyko.at.netqos]

Padmasree Warrior is a woman.

And a Jedi.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[Verdatum]

Couldn't she then be one of their best people, interested in leaving to form a new CTO position in the Federal Government? Who knows, maybe she wants out because she can't stand Cisco either.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[Mex]

If I had to choose between the two, which apparently I would (not that my decision makes ANY difference whatsoever), I'd have to go with the dude from Cisco. He at least has his roots, however good they may be, in a business and not a "cushy government job."

And this is why, thankfully, you're not the one selecting the person for the position. For starters, it's not a "dude", it's a woman. She's also got a bit of a reputation for being a regular "Good Ol American Executive" at Cisco, meaning: Don't shake the status quo too much, do not innovate so much, don't take risks, get a lot of money, move on to your next enterprise/target. Not exactly a visionary.

The guy from the government job I don't really know, but the "dude from Cisco" wouldn't be a very good choice.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[Martin Blank]

Could she? Perhaps. But I worry about people that come out of the biggest players in the market and the favoritism that may develop. (I'd be similarly concerned about someone coming out of Microsoft, IBM, Sun, or Time-Warner, for example.) I just don't know enough about her to make any educated guesses about her qualifications, so skepticism reigns.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[jesterzog]

The real issue here is that in this situation I would want to see an individual from the private sector because when you work for the government you really don't have metrics on profit. Since the returns on investment are largely intangibles and have little for comparison it is difficult to quantify value. Because of this I want someone who can come in and at least have an idea of profit and value instead of just having to make things better.

Isn't it at least as important to have someone who's familiar with recognising that stockholders aren't necessarily the only stakeholder? Efficiency should be important both in the government and in the private sector and I'm not trying to suggest that there couldn't be big improvements in efficiency of the US Federal Government, but government is (or should be) very different when it comes to prioritising outcomes. Not everything in government can be profitible, and it's not all about sacrificing benefit to everyone so that higher dividends can be returned to a select few who happen to be owners.

I'm not a US citizen so it's not directly important to me, but if I was then I'd want to see someone possibly with experience in the public sector, but definitely with a demonstrated interest in providing good, practical and useful services for people where it makes sense to do so, rather than simply cutting costs with nothing but a profit motive.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[The Cydonian]

A popular Malayali surname; it's often transliterated as 'Warrier' or 'Variar' as well. In fact, there was an Indian minister with the exact same surname, just transliterated differently in English.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[blamanj]

The dude is a dudette.

Re:Answer is obvious?

[jellomizer]

Having worked as a consultant for both Private Indrustry and Government. I didn't say the Government workers don't work hard. But the fact is for most companies in my experience Private sector works harder. Most government employees would be surprised how hard they work, vs them.

As you said there is no way to fire useless employees in government, that being the case it lowers the bar. It makes an average employee a good employee and above average employee and excellent one. And excellent employee quits and becomes an excellent employee for private sector where they can make more money.

People tend to work around the area of what is expected of them, Perhaps a bit more or a bit less if you have less of an expectation then you get less output.

There are ways to quantify employees skills in government without necessarily going to dollars. But those ideas are shot down by the Unions because the Unions don't want highly skilled people who can think for themselves. They want mindless followers who they can manipulate.

Stimulate the economy!

[GaryOlson]

SMARTnet contracts in perpetuity for everyone provided by the US Government!

Does not matter who is chosen: the industry guy will tire of the endless petty bureaucrats and quit in 18 months. Then we get the government lacky anyway; and, we get free technology for everyone.

Re:Stimulate the economy!

[GaryOlson]

Perhaps if you replied not as an AC but an individual, we could have a meaningful discussion based upon each person's experiences.

I have worked in both private and public sectors for more than a decade each. I do not agree with your summary of my statement; and reject the premise.

Yes, the private sector contains its share of sluggish, petty, fools. But most fail to rise to a position of effective power.

And the public sector does contain some dynamic individuals. But the daily head-into-wall routine of entrenched policy which cannot be immediately superceded by an executive can make a person sluggish and selfish over time.

is this the best they can do?

[Dan667]

seriously? I worked at Motorola when Padmasree was there and I have seen more tech success in that period watching my lawn grow.

Re:is this the best they can do?

[CE@UIC]

I'll second that. I also worked for Moto during that time also and the only impressive thing that came out of the office of the CTO was the lack of innovation coming out of the office.
The CTO of the country doesn't need to be someone with an impressive resume who's never actually done anything or created anything substantial, it needs to be someone who has actual experience innovating and growing innovation.

Re:is this the best they can do?

[Chris Burke]

seriously? I worked at Motorola when Padmasree was there and I have seen more tech success in that period watching my lawn grow.

In her defense, the materials science and chemical engineering going on in your lawn is actually rather sophisticated. ;)

Re:is this the best they can do?

[p0tat03]

When the alternative is someone with no ideas and plenty of experience at failing... I'll take the idealist with no experience, thank you very much.

Re:is this the best they can do?

[dpaton.net]

Agreed. ANYONE but Mrs. Warrior. She sucks!

Re:is this the best they can do?

[dsgrntlxmply]

As one who also worked for Motorola during Ms. Warrior's warming of the CTO seat, I third this.

It was never clear what, apart from the silly phrase "Seamless Mobility", she actually contributed.

While it would not be correct to pin the massive failings of this formerly great company solely upon her, it must be considered that she was elevated to the CTO position by a management regime whose combined avarice and comprehensive ineptitude are now undeniable.

Her qualifications are not stellar, and her actual record of performance at anything apart from being hired into high profile positions, is regrettably deficient.

Re:is this the best they can do?

[GaryOlson]

Carly has a twin?

Sen. Stevens

[lbmouse]

What?!? Ted Stevens wasn't available?

We need someone in there that understand that the internets are not like a big truck but rather a series of tubes.

Humm...

[LWATCDR]

Two Indian born CTOs are the two top runners. Is this a statment about.
1. Diversity?
2. The lack of US citizens going into the tech sector.
3. Stereotyping?

Me I would vote for Vivek Kundra. I think he would see things from a customers point of view vs a vendors point of view.

Re:Humm...

[pmarini]

4. Admitting that USA's call centres are all run by Indians, so why not this one too ?

Re:Humm...

[LWATCDR]

My mistake. Lack of native citizens going into the tech sector.
I am pretty sure that Vivek Kundra is a US citizen he has lived here since he was 11.

Re:Humm...

[Samschnooks]

4. All the above.

I choose 4.

Re:Humm...

[TubeSteak]

My mistake. Lack of native citizens going into the tech sector.
I am pretty sure that Vivek Kundra is a US citizen he has lived here since he was 11.

Maybe in the post-industrial, infocentric world, comparative advantage will no longer be about producing goods at a lower opportunity cost, but about producing workers at a lower opportunity cost.

India & China are churning out millions of engineers, biologists, comp sci/programmers, and doctors.
What field(s) is the USA's comparative advantage in?

Re:Humm...

[LWATCDR]

People seem to forget that I did put diversity as the top one. I just find it odd that both are Indian-American and not just one. If both here Irish-American, German-American, or Chinese-American it would be just as interesting.
It isn't that any of them are Indian American it is all of them just happen to come from that small minority.

Re:Humm...

[warGod3]

You two have two qualified candidates, both Indian-born. Whether it is a statement about any of those or a statement showing huge successes made by those in the Indian community, who cares because it is all dependant upon your perspective and interpretation. Personally, I could care less which one is in the position. Once whoever gets there, he or she will be inundated with *ME*ME*ME*ME* from all of their old "friends" and coworkers and other lobbyists looking to get stuff done.

Vivek

[duffbeer703]

Is a big advocate of Google -- he transitioned the entire city government to Google Apps.

Re:Vivek

[R2.0]

Being the shining example of DC civil servants is like being the most buoyant turd at the sewage treatment plant - you'll get noticed, but you're still shit.

Re:Vivek

[GaryOlson]

That statement generated a laptop wash using my favorite beverage! Wish I had mod points.

Re:Vivek

[Anonymous Coward]

My vote is also for Vivek. After reading through his wikipedia page, he comes across as being a MUCH better candidate than the Padmasree Warrior, especially after considering the complete mess Moto is in right now under her leadership. Mr. Vivek pushed for open source initiatives in DC and in Colombia. As well as opening up business initiatives in India. There isnt too much info available on his wiki page, but I am impressed with the guy.

NERF padmasree warrior!

[Anonymous Coward]

also, vivek and kundra talent trees need more buffs.

not sure if that's better or worse

[Trepidity]

As with much procurement, one of the big problems with IT in government is that it's more geared towards the profit needs of the contractors than towards the actual IT needs of the government---it buys what companies want to sell it.

It seems like a Cisco guy is pretty unlikely to put an end to that, since Cisco has a nice gravy train. Though I guess it's better than an Oracle guy.

Ungrateful twat

[Anonymous Coward]

You leeches, you scrimp on your taxes, never thank the government, and then have the gall to tar all public servents - people who spend their best years serving YOU - with the same, tired accusations. Tell me, how to you square the 'public service = cushy' claim with the 'US = most powerful country' circle? Do you think the infrastructure, social safety net, military, judiciary, etc., all just run on automatic?

Re:Ungrateful twat

[Gogo0]

wow.
from someone who actually enjoys working for the US Government (despite the much larger salary i could get as a contractor), thanks.
granted, there are lazy people who do nothing yet still get paid, but there are in any large company.

there is also at times a lot of pressure in government work. a lot of civil service positions have entire towns, cities, states, soldiers, or more relying on them, and these people work very hard to keep things working (water, infrastructure, defense, etc), and they do it for a lot less money than other places offer. we truly are civil servants, and a lot of us are proud of it.

Re:Ungrateful twat

[electrosoccertux]

No one denies that. Part of how we fix it though is by raising a stink. There's no other option. Government doesn't go out of business-- it just taxes more, as we've seen with NY during this recession.

If government were a for profit business they'd either have died years ago, or they'd be constantly working on weeding out and scaling back. That would be amazing. Come to think of it, is there any way we could run government as a business? With the exception of the defense sector and public transit. Why can't it be done?

Re:Ungrateful twat

[mangu]

Tell me, how to you square the 'public service = cushy' claim with the 'US = most powerful country' circle?

Hmmm, let's see, perhaps the US government outspends all other governments? Or do you think public service is cushier everywhere else?

Re:Ungrateful twat

[R2.0]

"You leeches, you scrimp on your taxes, never thank the government, and then have the gall to tar all public servents - people who spend their best years serving YOU - with the same, tired accusations. Tell me, how to you square the 'public service = cushy' claim with the 'US = most powerful country' circle? Do you think the infrastructure, social safety net, military, judiciary, etc., all just run on automatic?"

Hmmm, sore spot?

"Scrimp on my taxes?" Considering that it was a supreme court justice that said that no one is obligated to pay more than the law requires, are you accusing the entire nation of cheating?

"never thank the government?" #1, the "government" is an idea, an abstraction. You want me to say "Thank You" to a piece of paper? #2, those public servants are MY employees. As I help pay their salary, they are already receiving monetary compensation for doing their job. If an employee does an exemplary job, then they receive my "thanks", and a case of beer at Christmas.

"then have the gall to tar all public servents - people who spend their best years serving YOU - with the same, tired accusations?" As stated above, public servants are not some altruistic volunteer force; they are PAID to do their jobs and they receive excellent benefits packages. However, unlike other employees, they effectively cannot be fired, and their raises are locked in, so there is zero incentive to do the job well. In this environment, even a conscientious employee gets dragged down. So I am supposed to be grateful to my employees who are overpaid, undermotivated, and accountable to no one?

"Tell me, how to you square the 'public service = cushy' claim with the 'US = most powerful country' circle?" If I had any idea what this meant I'm sure the point would be just as inane as your others.

"Do you think the infrastructure, social safety net, military, judiciary, etc., all just run on automatic?" Of course not (and BTW, the military is NOT comprised of "public servants"). It takes people to run them. You seem to be of the opinion that, just because someone accomplishes a job, no matter how poorly or long, deserves our uncritical praise. I believe that you should perform your duties competently and effectively whether you get a pat on the back or not, and that if you excel you should be rewarded and if you fail there should be consequences.

Re:Ungrateful twat

[u38cg]

Magnificent troll, Sir; I salute you. Well done. I think we all understand you didn't mean what you said, there.

Re:Ungrateful twat

[Gogo0]

Im pretty sure thats where the idea of privatization came about. the idea that businesses are better at being businesses than a government is.
it seems like about 50% of voters dont mind it, and another 50% or so are against it.

Re:Ungrateful twat

[electrosoccertux]

It seems it's never done right when we do privatize it. The 50% against it use those examples to prove it's a bad thing-- but if the government would just privatize it the right way, it would be fine.

Government is wonderfully good at producing paperwork....I'd just like to stay away from that.
On the other hand the BritRail system would be enough for anyone to run from privatization full speed.

Re:Ungrateful twat

[Dhalka226]

So I am supposed to be grateful to my employees who are overpaid, undermotivated, and accountable to no one?

The OP was pretty obviously a troll, but I think you just went a long way toward proving his point for him. In response to him saying people ("you") "tar all public servents[sic][. . . ]with the same, tired accusations" you simply claim that public servants are overpaid, undermotivated and accountable to no one. It seems to me that's exactly what he said people do.

For the record, none of them are more than passingly true. Government employees almost never make more money than that exact same person with his/her exact same skill set could be making outside of the public sector. While their benefits are good, they almost certainly don't make up the pay differential, even ignoring the fact that many businesses offer similar sets of benefits. They can absolutely be fired, contrary to what so many think, and perfoming one's job poorly is one of the things that can get them canned. Their "protection" is from being fired without cause. And they're accountable to their superiors, while the people who are at the top are in turn accountable to the electorate. If there is any lack of accountability (though I doubt there is, generally speaking), it falls on our shoulders--we're not demanding it strongly enough. Then again we're a nation who damn near re-elected somebody convicted of seven felonies to the US Senate, so that really ought not come as a surprise.

Look, there are lousy public servants just as there are lousy private sector employees, many of whom in both situations may get away with being lousy, and I certainly have more than my fair share of contempt for the vast majority of politicians--but most of these people are good, hard-working people doing their best for rather un-competitive pay. In that I will join the OP: They don't deserve to be shit on as a group because of the handful of incompetent people we hear about, particularly when so many of those very people were put there by our votes. I'm all for criticizing people who deserve to be criticized, but simply reciting old mantras about how crappy government is or painting everybody with the same brush even when the problems exist in the minority don't cut it for me.

Point out somebody not doing their job, point out some evidence to back that up -- I'll hop right on board with you and call them out. But not when the rants are about teh gubmint or any large sub-section of it.

Re:Ungrateful twat

[Xest]

As someone who worked in British public sector, a nation that is also very powerful in the world and that arguably has better social safety than the US (free healtcare for one) I can assure you it's nothing to do with hard work in public sector.

Speaking to people from the US and in many other countries about it when I have I get the impression public sector is pretty much the same in large parts of the world.

The reason it does it's job is because it has vast amounts of money thrown at it and 3 people to every job that's actually required. When you throw that much money and that many staff at a problem there's a chance someone's at least going to manage to achieve something, and that's effectively how it works.

If public sector was full of good people like you seem to infer, it could be done with half the budget and quarter of the staff.

The reason I left for private sector was because I and a select few others there who also worked hard got sick of carrying everyone else in the department. Since we all left, the department has been outsourced as it was simply deemed to be failing for a while after we went. Unfortunately, the people that worked in our department weren't sacked, no, they were given equally cushy jobs in other departments. A friend who still works elsewhere in public sector has given up working hard, works at home 2 days a week and classes these as days off, does little when he's there and still gets paid a decent amount- he realised this is the best way to get by in public sector because if you dare work hard or try and improve things you get shot down and made to feel like crap.

So yes, it is a cushy job, because you really don't have to work hard when there's 3 other people doing the same job as you when it only needs one of you. The pay is good and because of unions there's no risk of losing your job no matter how incompetent you are.

Public sector departments run because of quantity not quality. Unfortunately, quantity is horribly inefficient and costly, but no government is going to deal with it because hey, what better way than to create thousands of unneeded jobs to keep unemployment figures down and make your country look great?

Yeah there are good people in public sector, I don't deny that, but they're few and far between, suggesting public sector as a whole is full of good hard working people is completely and utterly ignorant of the reality, and again yes, it seems to be the same in large parts of the world.

A two-horse race?

[greenguy]

Well, which one has more horse sense?

Re:A two-horse race?

[Valdrax]

Well, which one has more horse sense?

I think we abandoned our horse-based IT infrastructure in the 1860s.

Re:Cisco Guvmint

[Anonymous Coward]

On the basis that Cisco functions and makes money, while DC is a disaster, Cisco_guy++.

Have you ever worked with Cisco? I have and it was a nightmare. They are a horribly inefficient bureaucracy that makes money by leveraging their existing client base and giving purchasers all the hookers and blow they need to get them to sign. They owned 10% of a company I worked for, then decided to buy one of our failed competitors and try to compete against us. Said competitor failed for a reason, so when that flopped they tried to strong arm us into canceling our product in that market. When that failed they spent millions more to buy two more firms we had driven out of business because their products were so much worse than ours.

Their main problem is that they can make okay hardware, but they suck at software and they really, really, really suck at user interfaces and integration of products. Their corporate ethics are in the toilet with their standing layoffs policy and they're more than happy to push crappy solutions on all their "partners" and big customers while forgetting to mention that they won't touch the same solution with a ten foot pole for use on their own network.

So yeah they're terrible, which is still probably not as bad as Washington DC.

Idunno about Vivek...

[MadCat221]

I heard that he killed his boss and misused something rather important for selfish reasons.... Oh wait... VIVEK, not Vivec.

China

[geekmansworld]

Given that Cisco is the company that provided China with most of its network solutions for the so-called "Great Firewall", I should hope that tips the scales slightly in Kundra's favor.

Re:China

[The Moof]

Given that Cisco is the company that provided China with most of its network solutions for the so-called "Great Firewall"

And you don't think that somewhere, some agency is looking at that as a positive? Especially considering the wiretapping/network monitoring in recent years...

what happened to bill joy as a possible choice?

[capsteve]

i actually think either of these guys would be fine. the fact that we are getting a US CTO is a good first step. face facts:the first US CTO will prolly have a hard start until the rest of the government finally step in line and actually realize that a CTO is needed in these times.
there's gonna be some oldtime hardliners who'll remember "a time when there wasn't a fancy-pants US CTO, and don't really see a need for one..." once the prejudice and ignorance are washed away, then the CTO will actually make a difference.
on a side note, what happened with talk of Bill Joy becoming CTO? not to taut nativism, but he is an American(born and bred), author of vi, backbone of the original BSD rollout and co-founder of Sun.
whats up with that?

Re:what happened to bill joy as a possible choice?

[bsharma]

Andy Grove, Bill Gates, Irwin Jacobs, Steve Jobs (if healthy enough) would also be good choices.

So What?

[stoolpigeon]

You may ask, "So What?", she's a woman. And I'd have to agree. I've learned here at slashdot that you can't argue with a sick mind. But seriously folks, this is a government position that we have payed for. Shouldn't this be a case of 'you bought it, you name it'? And if so, I'm voting for an ordinary average guy instead of one of these hotshots. We keep letting these elite types run the show and there goes the neighborhood. It's not like we can fix it all by getting in a circle and singing kumbaya. These are dark times more fitting of songs for a dying planet. That's the inconvenient truth. All this typing has made my mouth dry. Got any gum? I hate having dry mouth before I head over to the church to talk to the confessor.

Re:So What?

[jomegat]

That worked out pretty well with Mike Brown, didn't it? At least the Senate had sense to ixnay Harriet Myers.

Re:So What?

[JoeWalsh]

Well done, Stoolpigeon. I laughed so hard, I broke my leg.

Re:So What?

[stoolpigeon]

It was all just for you - so I hope you enjoyed it. Life's been good and I like to try and share that goodness with others.

Fall guy

[HalAtWork]

No, they're just hiring a fall guy.

There is only ONE choice!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Leo Laporte!

Re:There is only ONE choice!

[perigee369]

Leo Laporte!

I have to second this one... Leo is far more in touch with the common man than these other two clowns.

Re:Cisco Guvmint

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever worked with Cisco? I have... They... [give] purchasers all the hookers and blow they need to get them to sign.

You are complaining... Were you the hooker, or the blow?

He's the guy who had to blow the hooker.

Kobayashi Maru

[viridari]

Do you want to die by way of eaten by sharks, or would you rather have wolves?

I honestly don't think either candidate is qualified for the position. We already know that Cisco is willfully ignorant, even hostile, towards FOSS and I imagine quite a lot of that mindset is endorsed by the CTO's office.

Is it too late to clean the slate and start over?

Re:Kobayashi Maru

[colinmcnamara]

On a day to day basis I work with Cisco, and with their product lines. While they don't open source their own code, they do showcase how relevant Linux is as a platform to deploy critical network systems on.

They are moving everything, from routers, to firewalls, to voice system on Linux kernels (as well as providing the proper credit). From this foundation they run their own proprietary code. Their is nothing ignorant or hostile with using and crediting open source software, while still retaining intellectual property rights to your own software.

Re:Kobayashi Maru

[viridari]

http://www.fsf.org/news/2008-12-cisco-suit

Re:Kobayashi Maru

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Reprogram the simulation and make the Klingons fear you.

There's a practical application behind that bit of Trek fandom cruft.

Change the damn game. Make politics about policy, not bickering.

True. Neither went from India straight into IT.

[Valdrax]

Maybe it's just a sign that the latent racism which assumes that just because someone was born in India they can't be a US citizen is coming to an end.

Heh. True.

Padmasree Warrior grew up in India and went to IIT, but she majored in Chemical Engineering and later got a masters in the same subject at Cornell. She started at one of Motorola's fabs and went on to management later. As far as I can tell, she's never been part of the software and systems side of the IT industry outside of management, instead working her way up through the fab side. (Much like I wouldn't consider John Sculley of Apple fame to have been an "IT guy" having an architecture major who went into marketing and management at PepsiCo before becoming an infamous Apple CEO.)

Vivek Kundra, while ethnically Indian, grew up in Tanzania not India, speaking Swahili. He came to the US at age 11, and I'd bet a dollar that he was a US citizen by the time he went to college. He has a BS in psychology and a MS in information technology from the University of Maryland. He also has private sector experience.

So, to sum up: One Indian-American never went into IT so much as into plant design and later management, and the other was not only probably a US citizen at the time, but was more African than Indian in cultural upbringing.

Liberty Is Dead

[TonyXL]

The fact that people are debating who should be the Technology Central Planner, instead of realizing that the very idea of one is silly and dangerous, shows that liberty is dead.

Re:Liberty Is Dead

[Valdrax]

The fact that people are debating who should be the Technology Central Planner, instead of realizing that the very idea of one is silly and dangerous, shows that liberty is dead.

Gosh, I guess liberty is defined as the government having absolutely NO plan for how they spend money on their own IT infrastructure. I guess we should leave all that to random whim of local agency bureaucrats who have nothing better to work on.

Or are you some delusional crazy who thinks that the nation's CTO is going to be dictating (Soviet style) what direction development and product release the private sector must take. If that's true, then don't worry -- that's the responsibility of the alien/jew hybrids at the UN NWO committee who run the mind control laser satellites. All hail Lemuria! May her tendrils forever writhe in ecstasy!

Re:Liberty Is Dead

[TonyXL]

My point was that it is sad that the federal government is so large that they need yet another bureaucrat to support all the other bureaucrats.

If you are in favor of this, you can pay the CTO's salary, and pay for all of the IT infrastructure supporting the hundreds of bloated bureaucracies in the federal government. But don't make me pay.

Re:Liberty Is Dead

[Valdrax]

My point was that it is sad that the federal government is so large that they need yet another bureaucrat to support all the other bureaucrats.

Grow up. No private company of any size larger than a single office can get away without someone managing the infrastructure, and there's no way to manage an organization even the size of the smallest state governments without some organizational discipline.

If you think a society on the scale of the United States can function with a government small enough not to need anyone tracking the organization's infrastructure, you're living in a child's fantasy. The same kind of whimsical, small government fantasy that led to the mismanagement of the past 8 years.

Screw Vivec,

[selfabuse]

Dagoth Ur for CTO!

Warrior == Poor

[Masters Champion]

I can't say anything about the other person, but Ms. Warrior would be a disastrous pick, IMHO. I had some contact with her when she was CTO at Motorola and I came away from that experience thinking she was:

1. Was a poor leader
2. Did not consider opinions other than her own on making decisions.
3. Was really not very knowledgeable
4. Was only out for her own advancement


Perhaps these are the attributes of many successful executives, but don't strike me as qualities you want in a civil servant.

Did you ever have contact with a person of real power/wealth/influence and come away thinking "How did they EVER get to where they are?" The older I get, the more I think success requires some work + many connections + a lot of luck.

It looks like the last might strike Ms. Warrior here again pretty soon.

Re:Warrior == Poor

[Chris Burke]

1. Was a poor leader
2. Did not consider opinions other than her own on making decisions.
3. Was really not very knowledgeable
4. Was only out for her own advancement

Perhaps these are the attributes of many successful executives, but don't strike me as qualities you want in a civil servant.

Well, I know nothing about the woman, but I do know that unfortunately it is often the case that people with these attributes are able to make themselves appear exactly the opposite during job interviews. So while I doubt many employers including the Obama administration consider those to be strengths that may not mean anything as these traits would only show once she got the job.

"Technology Central Planner"?

[argent]

So all those companies that have a CTO are communist?

No, really, what the hell are you talking about?

Re:"Technology Central Planner"?

[TonyXL]

If you don't like a private company's CTO's directives, you are free to not use that company's products or services.

If you don't like a the government's CTO's directives, and you ignore them, you get fined and go to prison.

Re:"Technology Central Planner"?

[argent]

If you don't like a the government's CTO's directives, and you ignore them, you get fined and go to prison.

Aren't you missing "and you work for the Government" in there somewhere?

Re:Cisco Guvmint

[Valdrax]

So yeah they're terrible, which is still probably not as bad as Washington DC.

I'd like to point out that the guy from Washington DC also has private sector experience if you're worried about icky public sector cooties getting all over your new public sector employee. He's also very big on open and transparent government. His resume's a bit light to figure out how good he'll be, but he's probably got a huge leg-up on working with people in Washington.

The lady from Cisco, however, managed a doomed subsidiary of Motorola based on an uneconomical GaAs-on-Si technology before eventually presiding as CTO over the continued slow decline of a company that hasn't had an exciting product since the RAZR years ago before moving on to fill a position at Cisco which had been vacant for two years. While she does want to see more funding for fundamental research and development (not surprising given her fabrication background), the association with Motorola and Cisco does not scream the best and brightest of the private sector to me. Given her academic credentials, she's probably very brilliant, but I don't see how that's translated into success for her companies.

google apps for whole government

[Danathar]

Kundra replaced all of D.C. gov's word and exchange infrastructure with google apps.

Wonder if he would push that for the whole federal government?

Re:google apps for whole government

[Valdrax]

Kundra replaced all of D.C. gov's word and exchange infrastructure with google apps.

Wonder if he would push that for the whole federal government?

Would that be a good thing -- both in terms of changing from giving one powerful vendor a monopoly on services to another and in terms of security? Plus, would this really do anything to move us away from keeping things in MS formats since Google Apps work with them?

Re:google apps for whole government

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there was a lot of smack thrown around above about Kundra by people who have no situational awareness of what is going on in DC.gov. I am an IT professional and a DC citizen for 15 years. I think this guy is a truly innovative and entrepreneurial thinker - he is a change agent who is demonstrating the creativity, work ethic and balls to make an impact on a hugely change-resistant bureaucracy. He also has experience running effective government IT organizations. My only regret if he gets the nod from Obama will be that DC loses his sorely needed talent.

Re:google apps for whole government

[Verdatum]

Didn't you know about the latest project? fed.google.com, "Google Federal Infrastructure (Beta)"??

Re:google apps for whole government

[je ne sais quoi]

Dude (or lady-dude).... wtf is a "change agent"? Are you being paid to write marketing-speak or are you just doing it subconsciously? Either way, it's fucking creepy.

(No offense to you or Kundra, I actually like quite a lot the idea of moving away from MS Office for government documents. As for the choice of google apps over something else, well... Openoffice is just a let-down, I've tried sticking up for it again and again, but I can't keep that up any more. So what other option is there? I can only think of koffice or the gnome office suite. Both of those are more or less practically limited to linux and mac os X.)

Re:google apps for whole government

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Plus, would this really do anything to move us away from keeping things in MS formats since Google Apps work with them?

OpenOffice works with MS formats. The point being your documents are not locked into that format and open formats workflows are just as functional. By default it interfaces via any Web browser (all of which are free) rather than using a proprietary client and server, both of which cost money for every seat.

Padmasree is forward thinking, and the best pick

[colinmcnamara]

As Cisco's CTO Padmasree Warrior has led many changes inside of Cisco.

1. Green DataCenter initiatives - She has led the charge in lowering power consumption of existing DataCenters by utilizing new technologies, as well as consolidating sites. This has a direct financial impact, as well as being good for the environment.

2. Focus on collaborative tools and teams - she has really pushed to break down the silo's between teams by providing the tools and technologies to seamlessly share information between teams.

Most importantly, she is a forward thinking technologist, not a bureaucrat. If I am going to trust anybody to drive the technical vision of the federal government, I am going to trust Padmasree.

Yeah, leave Ronald alone

[Colin Smith]

It took a Bush to bankrupt the USA[1].

[1] In fact, the USA declared bankruptcy on 15th August 1971, and it was Nixon wot did it.
 

Re:Yeah, leave Ronald alone

[FireStormZ]

Its a cultural problem. California (dems) has been going bankrupt for years, so has NY (dems and rinos), and a fed run mostly by the GOP... The fact is *both* parties are so busy buying our votes that there is no hope of getting out of debt..

Re:Yeah, leave Ronald alone

[Anonymous Coward]

the Clinton surplus only existed due to the .com bubble. The current economic crisis is due partly to the federal reserve's attempts to soften that bubble implosion. There is no path to a debt free America that doesn't involve significant spending cuts, something congress won't do.

Re:Yeah, leave Ronald alone

[LynnwoodRooster]

And then that pesky little thing called 9/11 happened before the first Bush budget. And of course, the budget deficits under the GOP and Bush were dropping from the Clinton recession and 9/11 fiasco; it was when the Democrats took over in 2006 and created the last two budgets that we saw the deficits spike.

Re:Yeah, leave Ronald alone

[Bazar]

Here's a chart showing the US National debt with a nice timeline showing the president in charge, and any wars.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

There is no spike. There is a surge at the end of the Clinton administration, which lasts the entire duration of the bush administration. The national debt nearly doubles under his term.

Considering how big a hole was dug in the US economy (which has spread globally now), i don't expect any US government can truly recover from it in a matter of a few years. I honestly doubt they ever will, and instead will continue their slide into national debt until their debt explodes in another global crisis (if it doesn't go off this time)

Re:Yeah, leave Ronald alone

[I8TheWorm]

Interestingly enough, Nixon did that to prevent the French from demanding the remaining war reparations the US had promised in gold.

Very short sighted, but seemed like a good idea at the time.

Re:Yeah, leave Ronald alone

[eleuthero]

It seems to me that we blame one man entirely too often. The fault of a nation with huge debt is found in its people, be they Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, blues or pinks, etc. Bush was the "leader" but then so was Obama at the time... Bill Clinton before, and Bush and Reagan before that--history doesn't start over every four years and a nation of some 300 million people requires lots of cogs to get to where it is today. Some of those cogs have a big impact while others merely work in tandem with other small ones.

We are all responsible for the debt of our nation, for the actions of our representative government, and for where our children will be in five, ten, or fifty years from now. I frankly liked having a divided government as no one party has all the answers. I hope that a lack of one over the next two years minimum won't be too much of a problem.

Don't buy Cisco!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hiring Cisco's CTO would be a dangerous choice and could easily lead to a whole host of issues from bias problems through to the creation of a technology-industrial complex.

And she's Indian, not American. Like Satyam.

Isn't this a CIO position?

[Steve1952]

Not to quibble, but isn't this really a Chief Information Officer position, rather than a CTO position? I would expect a Chief Technical Officer to know much more than just information technology.

Re:Cisco Guvmint

[OnlineAlias]

The interface on 3000 series VPN concentrators was written by a company called Altiga. Cisco bought the interface and the company lock stock and barrel. It was also a welcome change to their previous VPN concentrator attempts in IOS, called the 7100 line.

I'm just saying its a bad example, as Cisco had little to do with that interface.

Missing ones

[Stonent1]

No Robert X. Cringley? No John C. Dvorak? Not even an honorary mention for John Katz?

none of the above

[Dolphinzilla]

personally I'd like to see someone more rounded - maybe someone with a physics background from a National Lab - the job entails quite a bit more than IT issues I hope....

Oh Boo Hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just a start.

Then I hope it starts to get better soon, because there's nothing particularly interesting here.

So the AG is from the Clinton admin. So he isn't a gun nut. Cry me a river.

Wake me when they're championing torture, bribing commentators, and making shady business deals in secret.

Re:Oh Boo Hoo

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Then I hope it starts to get better soon, because there's nothing particularly interesting here.

Actually I think all those are interesting factoids. Mind you, they aren't necessarily representative of Obama's appointees or for that matter as bad as ones Bush made.

So the AG is from the Clinton admin. So he isn't a gun nut. Cry me a river.

It isn't a matter of him being a "gun nut" and trying to paint people who interpret the second amendment sanely as "nuts" does nothing to help your case. Whether they want to admit it or not, the second amendment clearly presents gun ownership as a personal right and there is tons of supporting documentation for that interpretation while pretty much just wishful thinking from the opposing camp. People who claim otherwise are just playing politics and trying to justify unconstitutional actions and laws because they thing it will get them or their party votes (which it often does). If a person is willing to basically lie about what the constitution says and usurp rights it protects (rather than getting the amendment overturned) then they are being unethical. You also have to wonder how they will interpret other very clear subjects in the constitution when it is to their benefit to misinterpret them.

Wake me when they're championing torture, bribing commentators, and making shady business deals in secret.

This is the "we're not as bad as China" defense constantly used by the Bush administration to try to paint their unethical acts as not as bad as others and therefor acceptable. It didn't fly then and it doesn't now.

Re:Oh Boo Hoo

[calmofthestorm]

Upholding the second amendment doesn't make one a gun nut.

Bender . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I can't really conceive how Slashdot could consider any other candidate.

He's tanned, rested, and will be able to give Obama a few laughs in what will probably be an administration challenged with difficult problems.

After a rough day wrestling with the Senate over Economic Stimulus Packages, Obama would probably prefer to retire to the White House TV room with Bender, cigars, booze and dirty jokes.

Racial Preferences in Assigning posts

[Hordeking]

Is it just me, or does Obama seem to have this habit of take a position to be assigned and determine a politically racial/ethnic-makeup-pool to pick candidates from for this position?

Judging from the names of these two picks, and from other positions (as well as the Illinois-vacant-seat debacle, where a black man had to be picked to succeed a black man by a shortly-thereafter-impeached governor whose picks were questionable at best), this seems to be the overriding mode of operation in political circles

Political correctness? Pacification? Class-mongering?

Before this gets modded troll, try reading this as questioning how our system currently works, not how it legally should.

Offshoring

[hendridm]

Does a bias towards off-shoring conflict with Democratic (party) tenets?

RE: Cultural Problem

[monkeyboythom]

Lord knows I am going to get slammed for this...but where is the white guy?

I am afraid that Congress, behind closed doors, is still a racist institution. I'm afraid that either person will not be as succesful in navigating those waters with ties back to India. (Or Russia, or China, etc.)

So, basically

[Shivetya]

what your saying when combined with what others say about the other choice is that in the end it really doesn't matter because both are not only not ideal but bad?

Let us just pick the one who didn't pay their taxes for many years instead.

that would be xenophobia rather than racism

[Trepidity]

There's been questions raised when various non-U.S.-born white people have been given high government posts as well; for example, Zbigniew Brzezinski (Poland), or Madeleine Albright (Czechoslovakia).

Now, if an American-born person were considered unqualified for a post solely because they happened to be of Indian ancestry, that'd be another matter. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Kundra has been kicking butt in DC

[gabroo]

Most posts here seem to be generalizations based on little to no facts, and I can't see how that's helping the discussion.

Can't speak for the Cisco lady, but Kundra has been kicking serious butt in DC. He's run tech start-ups and runs his agency the same way: aggressive, frugal, and with little tolerance for those that don't performance. Here's a Washington Post article on him from a few weeks ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/04/AR2009010401235.html

He created hundreds of data feeds in his first few months in office to make DC one of the most open governments around. Then a few months ago, he hosted an open competition with $20k of prizes for anyone to create innovative applications using these data feeds.

Re:Kundra has been kicking butt in DC

[aestas]

I totally agree. As a citizen of DC, I can attest to how Vivek has revolutionized the city. Anything that needs to be done from a simple change of address to locating the closest snow plow can be found online. The new WMATA website allows me to get real time trane information to ensure there is no waiting on the platforms - and even better this can all be done from my iPhone - drive by Vivek's "Apps for Democracy" contest.

Kundra was a VP of Marketing for God's sake...

[Assmasher]

... No self respecting person with a competent technical background would ever stoop to making their living regurgitating phrases like "win/win" and "low hanging fruit". Go with the CISCO chick with the wicked cool name :).

Outsource it to Indian callcenters instead!

[evildopey]

That'd work out best for government accountability. You'd call the IRS, and you'd get "Ted" from India. Then the next day, you'd call back and recognize him and say "hey Ted, I talked to you yesterday", only for him to say today he's Ralph and there's no Ted that works there. And the e-mails would be a complete misdirection play. If only Dubya had come up with this plan, no one would have caught on until he'd ran out of the White House with the china and the desk from the Oval Office.

CmdrTaco revealed

[dangitman]

Barack Obama apparently didn't return CmdrTaco's call.

Apparently he did, and we now know Taco's real identity; he's Vivek Kundra.

Re:Hmm, no Americans available for the job?

[gabroo]

If by "offshoring" you mean will bring lots of investment to the US...

From his bio: "In 2007 he assembled the largest United States trade delegation ever to visit India, comprised of over one hundred business leaders, which resulted in a $99 million investment for the state [of Virginia]."

Absolutely not!

[dtmos]

I hate to break this to you, but neither one of those initiatives is unique to Cisco. Both of those were corporate initiatives at Motorola while she was there, and they weren't even novel then -- most companies had them, the green initiative due to EU regulations and public relations in general, and the breaking down of silos because it was the latest wave in management self-help books. (Motorola, in particular, had a severe silo problem, known as the "warring tribes.")

After watching her career for the last ten years, this is par for the course. She is absolutely not a "forward thinking technologist" -- her career over this time has been a series of steps in which she took her "vision" from her superiors, trashed her own organization, then moved on before the mess became apparent to those above her. Just look at the organizations she's left: Motorola's Semiconductor Products Sector (now spun out as Freescale Semiconductor) and Motorola itself (in which Motorola labs, the corporate research arm of the company she once led, is now down to less than 300 individuals, less than ten percent of which are engaged in wireless research). Not to mention the company's centralized software group (over 3000 individuals) which she also led, that was disbanded upon her departure.

Does that sound like the work of a forward thinking technologist?

Conflict of interest.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

IMHO if the Cisco exec gets the appointment, other equipment suppliers will be out in the cold. Hiring an executive from one of the suppliers of the equipment the executive will be specifying strikes me as a massive conflict of interest.

In the interest of full disclosure: I currently work for one of Cisco's major competitors. B-)

Question: If not one of these two, then who?

[bagsc]

Job Requirements:
    Experience as CTO in large bureaucracy (>50,000 employees)
    US Citizen for at least 10 years, has not lived overseas in that period (for security clearance)
    On some list of top CTOs (to impress the Senate)

An obvious hire, I would have thought.

[cunamara]

Hire Stallman.

Go read her twitter feed

[asad]

Padma twits on a regular basis and after working at cisco, reading her twits and an article by Chambers saying the office of CTO in cisco has 0 resources I feel pretty confident saying she's useless.

Seriously go read what she has posted, her job at Cisco consists of going to events that Chambers can't be bothered to attend. She doesn't manage anyone, she doesn't accomplish anything and her leaving Cisco would only cause a brief shuffling of HR records to note she's no longer receiving an inflated salary and options.

I tried to find a project she has headed or something she has accomplished during her time at Cisco, can't find a single thing pretty amazing to have such a high profile position and yet accomplish nothing.

Roland Piquepaille's Padmasree Warrior Interview

[theodp]

Interview: Motorola CTO Padmasree Warrior June 19th, 2007.

Re:Cisco Guvmint

[evanspw]

nope. i know of about 50 guys in one BU that caught a bullet in 2004. terms were very generous though.

Look out for yourselves

[RegularFry]

Nobody else seems to have mentioned this, so I will: Cisco have a vested interest in increasing the bandwidth available to and in the US. Just sayin'.

Padmasre Warrior was at Cisco less than a year.

[Futurepower(R)]

You can read about Padmasree Warrior on the Cisco web site. There is a link to a biography of her. (PDF)

Quoting from that biography: "Warrior joined Cisco in 2007." She is not the source of Cisco's problems; those problems were huge long before 2007. Ms. Warrior left Motorola on December 4, 2007. It is not correct to imply that she had a strong connection with Cisco. She was there less than a year.

Another quote: "Prior to that, she was the CTO at Motorola, where she led a team of 26,000 engineers and directed Motorola Labs, with an annual R&D budget of $3.7 billion."

Quote from another source: "Did Motorola do the right thing and retire the head of Thoughtbeam when they shuttered the operation? Nope, in a Dilbert moment they promoted Thoughtbeam's leader Padmasree Warrior to Chief Technology Officer of the entire Motorola company"

Maybe Ms. Warrior helped create Motorola's problems. Motorola has been on a loooong, slow downward slide.

When Intel's 8600 was released the vice-president of technology at the company where I worked was very unhappy. The architecture is poor, as anyone who has programmed in assembly language knows. For a time there was a hope that the 68000 would take over the market. But Motorola's management wasn't able to take advantage of that temporary superiority.

Motorola's Semiconductor Products Sector is now Freescale Semiconductor.

Other people also think Motorola's management is amazingly weak. For example, Carl Icahn said this: "It is essential to the future of Motorola that its directors realize that the BOARD, especially at this precarious time, is NOT A COUNTRY CLUB OR A FRATERNITY, and that truly "qualified" people whose interests are truly aligned with Stockholders, are needed..."

You said, "I personally think the best person for the role would be a non-partisan, non-corporate figure." That's what I think, also.