Slashdot Mirror
Google's Megan Smith Would Be First US CTO Worthy of the Title
theodp writes: Bloomberg is reporting that Google X's Megan Smith is the top candidate for U.S. Chief Technology Officer. With a BS/MS in Mechanical Engineering from MIT, and experience ranging from General Magic to Google, Smith would arguably be the first U.S. CTO worthy of the title (the outgoing U.S. CTO has a bachelor's in Econ; his predecessor has a master's in Public Policy). "Smith joined Google in 2003. As vice president of business development, she oversaw many of its most important acquisitions, like Keyhole, the service that underlies Google Earth. She has led the company’s philanthropic division, Google.org, and served as a co-host for Google’s Solve for X forum, where distinguished thinkers and scientists brainstorm radical technology ideas with Google executives."
I'm not even going to waste mod points on this. I'd rather this just sit here at +0 and contribute my points to other, more worthy discussions on other posts.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Her coming from Google matters more than her degree. Revolving door politics is bad news for the consumer and for smaller businesses.
From the link BY THE FUCKING CONTRIBUTOR HIMSELF:
Prior to his career in government, Park was the co-founder of two successful health information technology companies.
So a man who started two IT companies by the age of 35 doesn't have a background in Technology, because he got a graduate degree in business?
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
You could have the smartest and most qualified person on the planet in that position and it wouldn't make any difference. Governments in general and the US Government especially are bunglers. They mess things up and make problems worse. If she's smart, it should only take her six months or less to figure out that she's being used for PR purposes because she's a smart women with a tech degree, not because anybody in the government bureaucracy is actually going to change anything. Think about the kind of person that's attracted to government employment. These are people who largely aren't competent enough to get jobs in the private sector and have very little ambition to take the risks necessary to run a business or be self employed. They like to play it safe, not think to hard or work to hard and take home a fat check every month. That's who she's up against in the government and that's why she will fail.
I hate to see things like this happen. Appointing her just because she is female cheapens what I've done. Just as the joke of a new CEO of Microsoft who was picked for his race pisses off my Indian friends, this is the same deal.
this is incredibly naive. to even think the current process is devoid of any sort of gender or racial bias, without "fanning the flames", is incredibly, incredibly naive.
Mechanical engineering? Really? No way. Strong cyber computer science credentials are needed.
Yes, many in Washington will want her as CTO specifically because of her gender and sexual orientation.
This sounds mostly political, then a bit managerial, then a teeny weeny bit technical. And from what I've read before, that post is mostly a bully pulpit with 0 effective power.
I'm sure each and every budgeting unit have their own systems, their own standards, their own teams, and their own kickbacks -sorry, suppliers. Standardizing, rationalizing and unifying all that is a bit technical, but, mostly, political.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Are the other applicants less qualified? Do any of them have degrees in mechanical engineering? We don't know, because the only person mentioned is Megan Smith. We can't fairly judge whether or not she'd be a good fit because we have no idea what the alternatives are.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Pfft. She's more likely to be discriminated against because of the uppity black man who nominated her.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Only if it's overt and provable.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
It's cute how you are surprised there are people in the US that would 100% vote against a gay person no matter how qualified they were. Me pointing it out has no bearing on the discussion, because those who are opposed to the "gay lifestyle" are likely already mounting a campaign against her. They didn't me to make this observation.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Because while she is quite qualified for the position I can bet that some in Congress will not only have an issue with her gender but also her sexual orientation.
Note that I do not believe this should be an issue at all, but reality is often different from what we would hope.
Trust me, congress doesn't give a crap about who or what she is. What they care about is if they can use her to hurt their political opponents.
It is the Senate that approves or denies Presidential appointees that actually require approval.
For what it is worth, the US CTO position was created by President Obama, just as he and his predecessor made up numerous Czar positions. Unlike the Czar positions that are created, this one actually does go through the approval process. However, considering that the first person to gain the title of the position was the secretary of technology (effectively the state-level equivalent) led to the near-collapse of the DMV by single-sourcing its data center through a major defense contractor (I believe Northrup Grumman), which they failed to distribute across the state (therefore causing many state-wide failures on a regular basis). By contrast, Megan Smith is probably far too qualified for the position as she actually understands how to get things done and how to get them done correctly.
Perhaps if you were better informed rather than frothing at the bit to announce that she is a she, and that she is gay, then you would have realized it was a non-issue. Yes, there are people that care (you being in the "care too much" category), but no one of relevancy is going to throw themselves under the bus to stop a Googler from getting a CTO position during an election cycle that the Republicans hope to win the majority in.
CxO is a whore.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Or rile up their base.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
but no one of relevancy is going to throw themselves under the bus to stop a Googler from getting a CTO position during an election cycle that the Republicans hope to win the majority in.
They don't just throw themselves under the bus, they pile up in front of it. It whips the base into a feeding frenzy.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Definitely. Members of both parties will use her that way, without giving a crap who or what she is.
It whips the Democrats into a frenzy? Indeed. It even stirs up some of the Republicans.
They need an issue beyond 'Incompetent President' to stir up voters. That elephant is in the room but it's boring to the public.
Fanning the flames only makes it worse, is the thing. To most people, left and right, it simply doesn't matter. Let it be. Deny the stage those who want your gender or whatever the only thing that's important about you. End the conversation, deflate the energy, lets things that shouldn't matter lie there and not matter.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Government wasn't about your qualifications, but about which party is in control and how much the person put in that position could further their agenda.
Be seeing you...
I never said there wasn't.
No one in either party's base gives a fuck about the gender or orientation of the holder of some office they've never heard of and will never care about. Maybe a few geeks care about this? Maybe?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
... the willingness to admit you don't know everything, and are willing to seek expert advice...
Well, these days, it's the lefties who poison the well of every issue with race and sex to justify passing laws that legislate privilege;
Since she's gay, I would assume what you're ranting about in this case is the "privilege" of being allowed to marry the person you love.
Nice.
No one in either party's base gives a fuck about the gender or orientation of the holder of some office they've never heard of and will never care about. Maybe a few geeks care about this? Maybe?
No position or issue is too obscure for congress and their PR agency, Fox News, to use as ammunition against the president.
It's cute how you completely ignore that there are people who would 100% vote FOR a person because they were a woman and/or gay. Those on the left ADORE such people. I suspect the support FOR such a person is, these days, approaching the level of the bigotry AGAINST such a person so as to cancel each other out.
Similar is the harping on the left about the racism Obama overcame to become elected, completely ignoring the racism that worked FOR Obama, who achieved about 95% of the black vote. This put him over the top... most white people did not vote for Obama (feel free to look it up), it was the fact that black people voted as a block and almost exclusively for him that the man is now president.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
"I have personally dated 3 women who have both beaten me, stole from me, and cheated on me..."... Don't see how that makes me a "privileged conservative white man."
Not even a marginally educated man. Re-read that first sentence you wrote, and you tell us what's wrong with it.
Funny, I didn't realize that Fox News was the PR agency for the Senate - you know, the body of Congress that actually approves the President's nominations (the House has nothing to do with the process). Perhaps a brush-up on civics is in order?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Man, you're so right: Fox News will totally sabotage Obama's re-election chances over this! News of the complete disaster which is the president's foreign policy will be bumped below the fold for 24-hour coverage of "office no one cares about"!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"worthy" is better judged in restrospect.
...we start talking about how disadvantaged women are in tech, and how we need to throw money at the problem or something?
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Who the hell modded this shit up?
This story isn't about gender issues, it's about tech issues. Smith seems to be the first candidate for the CTO who actually has a damn clue about the Tech in the Chief TECHNOLOGY Office position.
Previous appointees have been from tech businesses but have had a business background. Smith has an engineering background and has been working actually doing tech.
I mean, when was the last time you heard there isn't enough men employees in female dominated industries?
How about every single fucking time this topic comes up on slashdot and people post scads of links about campaigns to do exactly this in order to counter this ridiculous and pernicious piece of misinformation?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Like racial, national, religious, and age discrimination, gender discrimination can often be hidden behind other practices. The old Youtube video about hiring only H1B candidates is an excellent guideline on how to hire only members of your preferred social groups. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ) Simply fillin your preferred gender, age, skin color, religioon, or nationality for the word "H1B" in the presentation.
One of the most powerful forms of gender discrimination in the technology world is the inevitable discrimination against mothers who need maternal leave, or women who may become pregnant. Illegal or not, it colors every hiring review of younger women, for logical even if illegal reasons.
There is no doubt that she has the chops and anyone would be lucky to snare an executive with her background and talents. But the article's focus on what degree she has is just silly. The brightest developer I ever knew had a degree in chemistry. The best Director of development I ever hired was an Air Force tech. The best COO I ever worked for was a lawyer / polysci major with no business classes under his belt. The best Director of IT I ever had earned an associates degree and got her A+ certification to get her first job.
Meanwhile, the worst Director of Development I ever had was an MS of CompSci with an MBA. Guy was a tool and an idiot. The worst COO I ever had was an MBA with top grades from a top school. The worst CFO I ever worked with was a chemistry major. OK, that one kinda goes against my point. Forget about him.
Still, my point stands:
If you are still worrying about your degree 20 years out of college, you haven't done anything.
Reading her bio, she sounds really good. And the projects she's worked on make it clear that she likes technology. If the U.S. won't take her, I hope Germany or the EU will.
Aww, your deliberate obtuseness is sooo cute!
Wow, your deliberate obtuseness is sooo cute!
The idea that you must have a technical degree to be "worthy" of the CTO title is idiotic. Stupidest Slashdot submission ever.
If you had an actual point to make, we all missed it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
A perfect example of why a democracy was the LAST thing the founders of the country wanted. They designed it as a Republic.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
The name of the country is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
It is a democracy or a republic only in name. It is in fact an absolute monarchy.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs