Re: Re: Obama CTO

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh () syr edu>
Date: January 6, 2009 6:46:58 PM EST
To: <dcrocker () bbiw net>, <dave () farber net>
Cc: "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>, "John Ryan" <john.conor.ryan () gmail com>
Subject: RE: [IP] Re:     Obama CTO

Dave,

Again for IP:

John Holdren, Obama's nominee as Director of the Office of Science and  
Technology Policy, and a well regarded physicist also expert on  
energy, environment among other topics is an excellent choice to play  
the (hopefully more empowered role in an Obama administration) of  
keeping overll federal policies fact ie science-based and forward- 
looking.

A CTO in an information business helps set the technology direction  
for a company, and spots new opportunities for revenue growth and cost  
saving. For the Federal Government, we should all be happy if the  
technology to make the information engine run better and faster, and  
who knows maybe even cheaper, can be found and implemented.    
Including new investments in a wide range of technologies (far beyond  
IT I agree.)

So again. in the mega-info engine of the fed government, a CTO better  
add value to that engine, or find a different job.  The science and  
technology advisor post is already taken.

But Dave does have a good point, the complementarity and hopefully  
good teamwork of the CTO and the Science Advisor will be a key  
question if this new CTO post is going to pay dividends for us all.

Lee


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:dhc2 () dcrocker net]
Sent: Tue 1/6/2009 4:43 PM
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip; Lee W McKnight; John Ryan
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:     Obama CTO

Dave,

The direction this thread has gone underscores the need to distinguish  
between a
role that is

    "chief of government internal technologies"

versus

   "chief of technology advice for government policy".

The former has an internal focus, while the latter is external.

Having the internal job be highly biased toward IT probably makes  
sense, as long
as "IT" combines computing, networking and telecommunications.

Having the chief technical adviser for US policy development involving  
research,
industry, trade, finance, etc., etc., be biased towards IT would be a  
rather
serious mistake.  It not sufficient, for example, to cover much of the  
work on
'green' or biotech.

Around high tech companies, this confusion of roles is common, since a  
company
needs someone to run IT and someone to be insightful about product  
directions.

My own hope is that Obama chooses someone for advising on the  
development of
government policies, rather than government IT.  The latter is  
important, of
course, but the pressing need for the country is intelligent  
technology advise
about new, controversial and essential directions in policy.

It takes considerable skill to ferret out core issues and tradeoffs in  
these
choices, and that requires someone with a broad understanding of  
complex systems
issues that can combine multiple technical topics.  IT is part of  
that.  But
only part.

d/


David Farber wrote:
> From: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh () syr edu>
>
> The IT assumption is reasonable. Since the Federal Government is
> (mainly) an information processing engine, the most broadly relevant
> tech expertise for a federal CTO is IT.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: "John Ryan" <john.conor.ryan () gmail com>
>
> Dave: in everything (or nearly everything) I've read about the Obama
> CTO, it's assumed, as implicit, that the T stands for IT. Need it?
> Should not a cabinet-level or cabinet-advisory CTO also consider
> biotech, energy, transportation, ...

--

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net






-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com