Slashdot Mirror


What Happened To Obama's Open Source Adviser?

gov_coder writes "Back in January of 2009, various news articles announced that former Sun CEO Scott McNealy was to become the Obama administration's Open Source Technology adviser. Currently, however, a search for Scott on the whitehouse.gov website yields zero results. Searching a bit more, I found that Scott is currently working on CurriWiki, a kind of Wikipedia for school curriculum. So my question is, what happened? Did some lobbyist block the appointment? Did Scott decide his other activities were more important? Scott, if you are out there — please tell us what happened. There are many people working in government IT, such as myself, who were really excited about the possibilities of an expanded role for open source software in government, and are now wondering what went wrong."

32 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Isn't It Obvious? by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Funny

    What Happened To Obama's Open Source Adviser?

    He was invited to One Microsoft Way in Redmond, WA and while there discussing standards had a very unfortunate ... shall we say ... "accident?" Which left his voice sounding very metallic and his movements very jerky and unnatural. It was shortly after this that he stood up at the next White House IT meeting and declared, "Whitehouse.gov should be running on Silverlight and Silverlight only let's set so double the killer delete select all blue blue blue blue blue blue ... " At which point the administration decided that it just wasn't working out and removed the position quietly altogether and unexisted Mr. McNealy (or what was left of him anyway).

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Isn't It Obvious? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny

      in other words.....

      Eaten by a Grue?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Isn't It Obvious? by Em+Emalb · · Score: 4, Funny

      He was outsourced.

      yes, that's right, the OpenSource Advisor was Outsourced to India. He now goes by the title Indian Outsourced OpenSource Advisor. (But his friends call him Bob)

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    3. Re:Isn't It Obvious? by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Funny

      In other words, it all started like this:

      West of House
          You are standing in an open field west of the White House, with a boarded front door.
          There is a small mailbox here.
      > open mailbox
      Opening the mailbox reveals a leaflet.
      > read leaflet
      (taken)
      "WELCOME TO POLITICS!

      POLITICS is a game of adventure, danger, and low cunning. In it you will explore some of the most amazing territory ever seen by mortals. No country should be without one!"

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:Isn't It Obvious? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Informative

      He was only ever an Open Source evangelist when it was opportunistic to be one. I spent enough time fighting him when he was in anti-open-source mode.

    5. Re:Isn't It Obvious? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Informative

      I already advise some other countries.

  2. He was replaced... by NevarMore · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...with a small shell script.

  3. Who wants to know? by Obama · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who wants to know?

  4. Re:Not a lobbyist by JesseL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just because a lobbyist has no legal authority doesn't mean they're powerless or without influence.

    Did you learn everything about politics and government from Schoolhouse Rock?

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
  5. He's abandonware by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    He's still got a page at Sourceforge, but he hasn't been updated in months and his developer stopped answering emails.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  6. Confirmation hell? by l2718 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would not be surprised if McNealy's appointment is stuck in confirmation hell. He probably requires confirmation by the Senate (see Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution). The Obama administration has been very slow in getting their people confirmed, in part because of the concentration on the Supreme Court vacancies, in part because of Republican intransigence (continuing the Democratic intransigence during the Bush administration, which harks back to the conflicts with Clinton, and back and forth it goes ...).

    1. Re:Confirmation hell? by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you suggesting that Democrats didn't go nuts with Bush hate, or that Republicans didn't go nuts with Clinton hate?

      It isn't new.

      I'm generally of the opinion that if you truly believe the other party is completely evil, and your party is perfect, you're delusional. Both parties are largely filled with corrupt politicians who want to line their pockets, and cater to special interest groups. Both parties overspend and pass mammoth bills filled with crazy riders. Both parties have compromised personal liberty to appease knee-jerk reactions. Both parties have helped build a larger federal government.

      They flip-flop on policy so much, it is hard to keep track. For instance, when McCain proposed a cap-and-trade system, every Republican loved it, and every Democrat hated it. When Pelosi proposed a cap-and-trade system, ever Republican hated it, and every Democrat loved it. Which is it?

      When McCain was pushing for oil drilling, Pelosi threatened to drill in people's heads because it was such a stupid idea. When Obama suggested oil drilling, Pelosi said it was a great idea.

      Look at major players in the Liberal/Democrat party like Biden and Reid. Both pushed for warrantless wiretapping very early, even though it is supposedly against the common Democrat platform. Biden was pushing for it after Oklahoma City, and bragged about it during the debates.

      Look at Reid's Wikipedia page. It sure reads like a Conservative platform on many levels. And yet he is one of the highest ranking Liberals. The truth is both parties are far more similar than anyone wants to admit.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:Confirmation hell? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have never seen any party be this bad at it.

      I have never seen any party be this good at it. It's working out well for them. The constant repetition of bald face lies is shaping public opinion.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Confirmation hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Are you suggesting that Democrats didn't go nuts with Bush hate, or that Republicans didn't go nuts with Clinton hate? It isn't new.

      No, but not being new doesn't make it the same, and because Democrats opposed Republican administrations in the past doesn't mean that their tactics were on the same level.

      Republicans have set filibustering records and then shattered those records in term after term.

      Republicans last night broke the all-time Senate record for filibusters in a two-year term when they forced the 62nd cloture vote of this session on the omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 2764. The previous record of 61 cloture votes in a two-year term was set in 2001-2002, the last time the GOP comprised the minority in the Senate.

      Just halfway through the session, they broke the old filibustering record that was set by them.

      Similarly, we have Republicans placing holds on every single one of Obama's nominees -- something that has never happened. Why? In this particular case, it was so Senator Shelby could get some pork for his state. But there has been a great deal of other unprecedented obstructionism on the part of Republicans toward Democrats. For example, accidentally "losing" their voting cards to delay everything, preventing the usual unanimous consent motions to go about business, shutting down the Senate at 2PM. A classic example of this would be Republicans filibustering a defense spending bill just so it would take longer to get to the filibuster vote on health care reform. (Imagine what the media reaction to that would be if Democrats had done it -- instead we get deafening silence.)

      Yeah, Democrats have obstructed Republicans in the past. But to compare that with what's going on now -- or in previous Republican-minority Congresses -- is completely insane. We're talking about an entirely new extreme (which the Democrats have been ineffectually responding to with "well, maybe if we play nice they'll play nice again!") that has never before been seen.

    4. Re:Confirmation hell? by butalearner · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Are you suggesting that Democrats didn't go nuts with Bush hate, or that Republicans didn't go nuts with Clinton hate?

      To this level? No. Have a look at the Senate voting history. Go to 2010 and click on a few, scroll down to the senators list. Republicans are always, without fail, either the exact opposite of the majority of Democrats (usually Nay) or Not Voting. Now go back and click on 2005. Pick any issue you want, and either some Democrats voted with Republicans or vice versa. It's not just people's imagination, the country really is more polarized than ever.

      And the worst part about it is that the rest of your post is correct.

    5. Re:Confirmation hell? by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But if you look at the issues Republicans oppose, you will find that they supported many of those same issues when proposed by Republicans. Like the bailout. No, this is obstructionism, pure and simple. Republicans feel they can not let Obama rack up too many wins. They know their only real chance to regain power is if Obama fails. The Republicans want Obama, and our country, to fail, and so they oppose everything he does, regardless of their own personal beliefs.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    6. Re:Confirmation hell? by Cytotoxic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is an analysis with one eye closed. Tip O'Neill and Reagan were as far apart as you can get on the political spectrum, but they actively worked together on many different pieces of legislation. Clinton owes a large percentage of his legacy to legislation that was pushed by Newt Gingrich. Late in the Clinton administration this cooperative/adversarial relationship began to seriously break down. During Bush II it pretty much died. Obama took the reigns with completely unassailable majorities in both houses and the White House and Congressional leadership governed that way, aggressively leaving the opposition out of even the most trivial policy discussions. During this period the Republicans couldn't obstruct a damn thing. They were able to get a handful of democrats to vote with them in opposition on a few select issues - but calling those "Republican obstructionism" is quite the stretch. This all changed with the Mass. election. Now the Republican opposition actually has a chit in the game, albeit a very small one. The White House and Congressional leadership have not come around on this yet, and are still governing as if they have an unassailable majority. After the mid-term election shaves a few more seats off of his majority I think we'll see the President begin to make good on those campaign promises to work across party lines on a few select issues. And magically the filibusters will fade into memory.

  7. Sun's "open" play was never convincing for me by Bearhouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Am I the only one here who never really bought-in to Sun's latter-day 'open' evangelism?

    To me Sun's 'open' efforts always seemed to me to fall into one of the following categories:
    1. "Fsuk M$!" - e.g. Open Office
    2. Forced to do it by their own guys - e.g. Java
    3. Desperate attempt to stay alive/relevant (too late) - e.g. 'open' Solaris, (a bit of a FOSS joke, since most of the work was done by Sun employees)

    I'll admit that I'm not fan of Scott McNealy, who - in my opinion - failed to navigate the dotcom bust, and subsequent massive fall in hardware revenues, and then presided over the gradual, sad demise of a formerly pretty good company.
    Putting aside my bias, I'll still advance that there are plenty of other people better qualified to be a FOSS tzar.
    Your nominations?

    1. Re:Sun's "open" play was never convincing for me by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I spent a good deal of time fighting him when he was in his anti-open-source mode and didn't believe in his conversion either.

  8. Open sourced it. by kiehlster · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's even more obvious than you think. He's open-sourced the advisory position so anyone can fill the position and make changes.

  9. Re:Not a lobbyist by bigredradio · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did you learn everything about politics and government from Schoolhouse Rock?

    Well...... yes.

  10. Re:Let's check the timeline by dschl · · Score: 4, Informative

    Gates applauds Indian rich guy for sharing wealth: 4.2010 - saying that the norm in the US is 20% and that US benefactors need to give more along the lines of 40% ~ 50% while not mentioning that he & Melinda give along the lines of 1% ~ 2%.

    Please provide a reference for your claim.

    According to Businessweek, Bill Gates has given $28 billion out of a net worth of $59 billion, placing him second on the list after Warren Buffett. That appears to be considerably higher than 1-2%.

    --
    Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
  11. Re:Not a lobbyist by vxice · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lobbyists have no power when the electorate is well informed and active. WE are failing and causing these problems by allowing these lobbyists to have influence. The only way a lobbyist can have influence is if the gain from more money to a campaign offsets the number of people who leave because a politician was bought off and voted against his constituents interest. Please keep money in government especially when it helps the candidates I like. If a politician votes against my interests I refuse to vote for him. No amount of fancy campaign ads will ever change that. However there are more people who will vote for a candidate just because of a fancy and expensive ad. These people offset me and many other voters who vote not for nicest campaign ad but voting record and their ability to represent us. This is the fundamental problem with our country. Believing anything else is delusional and seeking a simple short term solution, the voters are the problem, until they take their civic duty seriously by ignoring nice haircuts and expensive ads and voting for actual substance we will not have a government that represents us.

    --
    every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
  12. I'm sure this by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."

    didn't help.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  13. Advisor? by hondo77 · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to this article, he was merely asked to write a paper. That hardly sounds like it was a full-time position as an advisor to the administration.

    --
    I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  14. Re:And the answer is... by biryokumaru · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who would have modded that recursive?

    Who would have modded that recursive?

    Who would have modded that recursive?

    Who would have modded that recursive?

    Who would have modded that recursive?

    Who would have modded that recursive?

    --
    When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
  15. Re:Not a lobbyist by JesseL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lobbyists aren't always bad, they don't always achieve their goals by unscrupulous means, and they don't always represent corporate interests with tons of money to throw around.

    Lobbyists are an exceptionally effective means for people to communicate with their elected representatives, being a sort of representative themselves. They can provide a clear voice for large groups of similarly minded people, who would otherwise be lost in the noise.

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
  16. Hi, Summary: RTFA -- one paper was asked for by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Informative

    Back in January of 2009, various news articles announced that former Sun CEO Scott McNealy was to become the Obama administration's Open Source Technology adviser.

    Actually, the one news article linked from the text "various news articles" in the summary, as well as every other web source I can find, indicates McNealy was asked to write one position paper on the use of open source software by the administration, and that was apparently presented to the Administration shortly after the request was made (this article from late February discusses some actions that occurred after the paper was presented.)

    The issue was never about McNealy being hired as for the position of "Open Source Adviser", it was about McNealy providing one-time advice on the use of open source software.

  17. Re:And the answer is... by Deimos24601 · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://www.google.com/search?q=recursion Check out the "Did you mean:" option.

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Re:Not a lobbyist by NevarMore · · Score: 4, Interesting

    +1, the EFF is a lobby.

  20. Do Some Research!!! by Brian+Edwards · · Score: 5, Informative

    You've got your facts wrong. Scott McNealy was never slated to become the Obama administration's Open Source Technology adviser. According to the articles you referenced, all he was going to do was write a paper:

    Scott McNealy "revealed he has been asked to prepare a paper on the subject (open source technologies and products) for the new administration."
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7841486.stm

    "According to BBC News, the Obama administration has asked Sun chairman McNealy for a position statement justifying the administration's use of open source software. The BBC wasn't clear on who specifically asked him, but McNealy's spokesperson, on a query by the Linux community, acknowledged that McNealy had been meeting over the last year with members of the administration's new technology initiative, which apparently led to this request."
    http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/Sun-s-McNealy-Advises-Obama-Administration-on-Open-Source

    I don't know if Scott ever got around to writing that paper. Searching the White House website for papers on Open Source, the only one I found was here:

    Open Source Software and Cyber Defense
    A White Paper provided to the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council as input to the White House Review of Communications and Information Infrastructure.
    Bob Gourley, Chief Technology Officer, Crucial Point LLC
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/cyber/Gourley_Bob_Open_Source_Software_and_Cyber_Defense_01_April_2009.pdf