My first reaction was "I didn't know the US had a CTO" and after a quick Wikipedia search it appears as they didn't until 2009 under Obama who appointed the first one.
The article nor Wikipedia make it clear exactly what a CTO's job in the White House would really entail. It sounds like a bunch of random stuff which utilise technology in some way or another.
But at least, for now, they have a technologist with decent technology credentials. I wonder how long until those role gets given to someone with the right political connections (or someone with good relationships with technology contractors/lobbyists)?
Because, to me, this role's primary job should be to wrangle in the technology contractors who are near constantly ripping off the US Government and under-performing/failing to deliver.
They can try to spread technology in schools and such, but then they run into the limits of the White House's powers and or the states right's dilemma (although this could definitely promote third party educational resources, like Coursera or Khan Academy).
Considering they took a Google executive, this could already be "someone with the right political connections". Google is one of the biggest lobbyists, I wouldn't be surprised if this had something to do with their efforts.
Still, at least it's somebody with proper qualifications. A techie, not a politician, so I'm hopeful either way.
Back in 2009, I met the first US CTO, Aneesh Chopra, and without a doubt he was a smarmy politician who met every political prejudice one might have.
I am happy that they have appointed Megan SMith, who appears to be a real technologist, because the meeting with Aneesh was so "political" that I had zero faith that position would be doing anything of merit going forward. That it was just another political office.
It was the same when I used to meet with Tom Ridge. That level in politics is really a bizarre world.
"Because, to me, this role's primary job should be to rangle in the technology contractors who are near constantly ripping off the US Government and under-performing/failing to deliver."
Putting a stop to the rip-off is easy. Do what another great American did to turn Ford around from a $3 billion loss into being more profitable than GM:
If your focus is on quality, then quality rises and costs fall.
If your focus is on cost, then costs rise and quality falls.
Under Todd Park the role was more of an "entrepreneur in residence" that helped shepherd some of the practices from the private sector into government. Some lean practices, small prototype testing before major program deployment, and changes in policy that provided more flexibility. That had the side effect of also impacting the ability of small businesses to engage with government. I hope they keep the role moving forward in a similar way.
> But at least, for now, they have a technologist with decent technology credentials. I wonder how long until those role gets given to someone with the right political connections (or someone with good relationships with technology contractors/lobbyists)?
Why do you think Megan Smith was chosen? Google has lobbyists and the right political connections. Fortunately the candidate has good credentials as well.
"Macgillivray, though, also does a bit of engineering of his own. After leaving Twitter, he hand-coded a script for resurfacing old Gmail messages to which he hadn't yet replied."
I don't think modifying an existing script counts as "hand-coded". Anyway, I still find it interesting that WashingtonPost links to a javascript file directly.
Having briefly met with Megan a couple years ago, I'm pleased with this appointment. She asked good questions and seemed to think through the consequences of rough conceptual ideas diligently.
Just to give some idea of the scale of things we're talking about, there's a Federal CIO council[1], with scores of memebers. The Feds have tons of agencies spending hundreds of billions on IT. Most all of these agencies were created by Congress, not the president, and although they report up the executive branch, they're also accountable to various and sundry legislative committees. Many times the decisions around tech and contracting have been legislated in some fashion. They just aren't made off-the-cuff.
The CTO is truly a stupendous job, even for someone working at Google scale. I would be very surprised if this turned into an operational role. I imagine it would be advisory and policy-based only. There's simply too much to get your head around and not a lot of levers to pull to make things happen like it does in the commercial world.
Still, I am very optimistic that there is much goodness to be done here. It's just not a CTO job in the way most of us would understand.
On the surface of it, I don't mind that they recruited from the industry.
However, if the CTO is in a position to influence government contracts or other spending towards Google, then I would be against this - same principle applies to ex-Goldman Sachs execs taking up key finance related Government positions.
What other choice do they have? They're not going to hire someone right out of college and there aren't a ton of people already in government that have the qualifications for that job. It's difficult to blacklist people who have former employment at a company when that company hires the best in the industry.
If there was any doubt that Google is in the sack with the US government, this consistent funnel of execs from Google to the White House should quell it.
If the Whitehouse isn't recruiting top Silicon Valley talent to fill technical positions, would you rather they fill them with executives from Washington D.C. area beltway bandit management consulting companies?
They've got to go somewhere for the talent pool and credentials, and that means tapping Google, Twitter, et al. It helps that Google and many Bay Area companies lean progressive and helped both Obama's campaign, as well as fixing ACA Web sites.
If the suggestion is this somehow proves some nefarious NSA connection because a few employees went to work for the government, that seems pretty fallacious to me.
This is in the same way as Google is "in the sack" with Yahoo, Facebook, Softbank, Xaiomi or any of the countless companies that have recruited ex-Google execs?
It's gonna happen unless you can sell everybody on a more-or-less Calvin Coolidge view of the world. Policy cannot actually be diktat; there must be a dialogue.
If you can catch leaders on CSPAN from various companies testifying before Congrefs, it's pretty frightening to think they'd have no voice at all - things are so over-specialized that there's considerable time spent on just getting warmed up. During the brownouts of the electric grid, it was sorta uncomfortable watching people from the electric industry trying to phrase things carefully but completely for the committee. Considerable time was spent on them asking how frequently the instrumentation on the grid should be polled. It's all a bit like the comedy short "The Expert".
Google has the combination of talent and name recognition that make it a great place to recruit candidates for this type of job.
She has the tech expertise but worked as an executive. She worked at Google which automatically gives at least the perception that she is one of the top people in the field.
I find this conflating of the US as a country and the US Government annoying. Megan Smith is the CTO of the US Federal Government, which is an entity separate from the US as a country.
It doesn't make sense for a country to have a "CTO". Do all technology decisions made anywhere in the US have to have her approval?
Logically, if she were the CTO of the US, she would have as direct reports all the CTOs of all the companies in the US.
The President is "of the United States" not "of the US Government", it doesn't mean everyone in the country reports to him - I think you might be over-thinking the terminology a little bit.
Because US citizens need somebody from Google's business model and school of thought fighting for us on the inside and helping the gov't formulate our data and privacy policies?
I'm really happy this position was given to a chick. Hopefully inspire more girls to enter tech and help to mitigate the sausage fest that is the technology industry.
US government has a CTO? Moldbug has advocated[1] turning the USG into a corporation for some time now. Not the first prophet to be called a kook at first.
[+] [-] Someone1234|11 years ago|reply
The article nor Wikipedia make it clear exactly what a CTO's job in the White House would really entail. It sounds like a bunch of random stuff which utilise technology in some way or another.
But at least, for now, they have a technologist with decent technology credentials. I wonder how long until those role gets given to someone with the right political connections (or someone with good relationships with technology contractors/lobbyists)?
Because, to me, this role's primary job should be to wrangle in the technology contractors who are near constantly ripping off the US Government and under-performing/failing to deliver.
They can try to spread technology in schools and such, but then they run into the limits of the White House's powers and or the states right's dilemma (although this could definitely promote third party educational resources, like Coursera or Khan Academy).
[+] [-] chton|11 years ago|reply
Still, at least it's somebody with proper qualifications. A techie, not a politician, so I'm hopeful either way.
[+] [-] jahewson|11 years ago|reply
Rangle: small stones which are fed to hawks to aid in digestion.
Wrangle: to herd horses or other livestock.
[+] [-] samstave|11 years ago|reply
I am happy that they have appointed Megan SMith, who appears to be a real technologist, because the meeting with Aneesh was so "political" that I had zero faith that position would be doing anything of merit going forward. That it was just another political office.
It was the same when I used to meet with Tom Ridge. That level in politics is really a bizarre world.
[+] [-] GFK_of_xmaspast|11 years ago|reply
Not a bug, WONTFIX.
[+] [-] Spearchucker|11 years ago|reply
If your focus is on quality, then quality rises and costs fall.
If your focus is on cost, then costs rise and quality falls.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
[+] [-] sailfast|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Amezarak|11 years ago|reply
Why do you think Megan Smith was chosen? Google has lobbyists and the right political connections. Fortunately the candidate has good credentials as well.
[+] [-] ArkyBeagle|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] findingMyWay|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] khc|11 years ago|reply
The article links to https://gist.githubusercontent.com/amac0/6b17b0ca497e9cb1f37... , which has a comment that says:
* This script is based on and is nearly identical to: * http://jonathan-kim.com/2013/Gmail-No-Response/
I don't think modifying an existing script counts as "hand-coded". Anyway, I still find it interesting that WashingtonPost links to a javascript file directly.
[+] [-] teachingaway|11 years ago|reply
Still awesome. We got a guy in the White House who has written two lines of code!!
[+] [-] Someone1234|11 years ago|reply
2 of the 4 lines changed simply alter the labels from "AR" (awaiting response) to "No Response."
So really is is two lines of actual logic different and some labels.
[+] [-] miles932|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sadfaceunread|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|11 years ago|reply
The CTO is truly a stupendous job, even for someone working at Google scale. I would be very surprised if this turned into an operational role. I imagine it would be advisory and policy-based only. There's simply too much to get your head around and not a lot of levers to pull to make things happen like it does in the commercial world.
Still, I am very optimistic that there is much goodness to be done here. It's just not a CTO job in the way most of us would understand.
[1] https://cio.gov/
[+] [-] ksk|11 years ago|reply
However, if the CTO is in a position to influence government contracts or other spending towards Google, then I would be against this - same principle applies to ex-Goldman Sachs execs taking up key finance related Government positions.
[+] [-] tinalumfoil|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] worklogin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cromwellian|11 years ago|reply
They've got to go somewhere for the talent pool and credentials, and that means tapping Google, Twitter, et al. It helps that Google and many Bay Area companies lean progressive and helped both Obama's campaign, as well as fixing ACA Web sites.
If the suggestion is this somehow proves some nefarious NSA connection because a few employees went to work for the government, that seems pretty fallacious to me.
[+] [-] Igglyboo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snowwrestler|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noamsml|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ArkyBeagle|11 years ago|reply
If you can catch leaders on CSPAN from various companies testifying before Congrefs, it's pretty frightening to think they'd have no voice at all - things are so over-specialized that there's considerable time spent on just getting warmed up. During the brownouts of the electric grid, it was sorta uncomfortable watching people from the electric industry trying to phrase things carefully but completely for the committee. Considerable time was spent on them asking how frequently the instrumentation on the grid should be polled. It's all a bit like the comedy short "The Expert".
[+] [-] serge2k|11 years ago|reply
She has the tech expertise but worked as an executive. She worked at Google which automatically gives at least the perception that she is one of the top people in the field.
[+] [-] magicalist|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abhiv|11 years ago|reply
It doesn't make sense for a country to have a "CTO". Do all technology decisions made anywhere in the US have to have her approval?
Logically, if she were the CTO of the US, she would have as direct reports all the CTOs of all the companies in the US.
[+] [-] corin_|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scrame|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] golemotron|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] known|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] scrame|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] metacorrector|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] llamataboot|11 years ago|reply
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/30/twitter-al...
[+] [-] nickthemagicman|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] valarauca1|11 years ago|reply
Can we please not use a term like "Chick" to refer to a person who holds a position in the white house?
[+] [-] sergiotapia|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceejayoz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spindritf|11 years ago|reply
[1] http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formali...
[+] [-] GFK_of_xmaspast|11 years ago|reply