4 ms·

Cloud.gov was really promising when it was announced years ago, but in practice there ended up being so many differing security requirements and security bounda

Cloud.gov was really promising when it was announced years ago, but in practice there ended up being so many differing security requirements and security boundary tensions between them and purported customers of them that they didn’t end up having any real impact because while some could use them, many could not, and those who could often found it easier to just not use them. There were also issues getting needed performance out of underlying Cloud Foundry infra and highly delayed updates, including security patches I believe. Truly a great idea and noble thinking, but government problems are rarely about the actual infrastructure and almost always about the bureaucracy surrounding things, as was the case with Cloud.gov. I think this is partially proven by its current customer list, which seems to be largely smaller or discrete projects of agencies rather than wholesale agencies moving to their PaaS, despite Cloud.gov being around since I believe at least 2015-2016.

newsclues 4y ago
So we need BaaS? Bureaucracy as a service?
- ccbccccbbcccbb 4y ago
  FaaF, failure as a feature
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- eastbound 4y ago
  I’m sure AI in charge of organizing a process can build forms and reach BAAS naturally. What I wonder is, to output a mess process, would it be faster than actual government services, or do govt services effectively act as brownian agents?
  - newsclues 4y ago
    Will AI BaaS work for the system or the bureaucracy itself as human systems do?
    - eastbound 4y ago
      You’re onto something. BaasAI is the new leader in pushing paperwork through administrations. It can untangle form dependencies, schedule reminders and even imitate a friendly voice after waiting 2 hours on the phone, searching through the database to find what topic will make the clerk laugh. Only large corps will be able to afford BaasAI. The ground is still level, but peons won’t be able to have any paperwork processed because the services will be saturated with thousands of bots which do their job better. This is the future.
  - jimmont 4y ago
    if that were true it would have already happened in healthcare, so they can extract more from sick people in the States; these existing systems optimize around different problems, goals and bounds
- Barrin92 4y ago
  welcome to Accenture/Deloitte etc. The professional services industry is big business
pmorici 4y ago
The issue is the business processes the government uses to contract, and purchase products and services as well as the processes for moving money between different agencies and departments are horrendous and involve a lot of people. This is true wether the value involved is $1 or $1 million. If any of the people involved is incompetent or decides they aren’t going to do their part in a timely fashion you are screwed. Nothing will change until that changes.
- MOARDONGZPLZ 4y ago
  This is an interesting hypothesis and I’ll take it to mean that among all the things that need to be solved, the business process is the biggest one. Because clearly there are many problems that need to be solved. But I think the hypothesis fails a bit on its face. Setting aside the question of whether an agency has money of the correct color to spend on something like Cloud.gov, interagency acquisitions are a fairly well-trodden path. It’s a very regular thing for an agency to purchase goods from another agency, and while software purchases still have wrinkles, it’s generally been done and can be done. Not always super easy, but easier than you seem to be implying. This goes for interagency transfers of money as well, but that’s really its own thing. It requires willingness from both parties. Still needs to be made easier, but I would still argue that the personal liability that attaches to an agency official that comes with accepting the risk of a security breach or other information loss is the biggest blockage to change. Put more plainly, would you risk your personal interests that Cloud.gov is secure enough for you to deploy your agency’s application to? Most people would not take this risk, which is in my estimation the biggest reason among many you only see small, public projects like EPA’s AirNow tracker on cloud.gov and nothing more sensitive or closer to an agency’s core mission deployed there. My understanding last I heard, which was a while ago, is that Cloud.gov team is scrambling to get new clients because that’s largely how it pays for or supports itself. I expect it will be deprecated eventually and that will regrettably chill any future initiatives like this.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  that seems to be the problem the post purports to solve? if they don't handle the compliance hassle of FARS (and maybe DFARS), what is their value proposition?
thewanderer1983 4y ago
I can't speak for all departments but the one I worked for. There was huge mistrust between sections and other departments. If projects were joint and required working together it always stalled. I believe that public servants more broadly see reforms and technology as threats to jobs and tend to be hostile to these implementations. Culturally it's not a place that welcomes reforms, and likes business as usual. If you aren't a business and you have no incentive to be more productive and make profits. Why would you implement technologies that mean having to re-skill and more than likely bigger workload?

newsclues 4y ago

So we need BaaS? Bureaucracy as a service?

ccbccccbbcccbb 4y ago
FaaF, failure as a feature
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
eastbound 4y ago
I’m sure AI in charge of organizing a process can build forms and reach BAAS naturally. What I wonder is, to output a mess process, would it be faster than actual government services, or do govt services effectively act as brownian agents?
- newsclues 4y ago
  Will AI BaaS work for the system or the bureaucracy itself as human systems do?
  - eastbound 4y ago
    You’re onto something. BaasAI is the new leader in pushing paperwork through administrations. It can untangle form dependencies, schedule reminders and even imitate a friendly voice after waiting 2 hours on the phone, searching through the database to find what topic will make the clerk laugh. Only large corps will be able to afford BaasAI. The ground is still level, but peons won’t be able to have any paperwork processed because the services will be saturated with thousands of bots which do their job better. This is the future.
- jimmont 4y ago
  if that were true it would have already happened in healthcare, so they can extract more from sick people in the States; these existing systems optimize around different problems, goals and bounds
Barrin92 4y ago
welcome to Accenture/Deloitte etc. The professional services industry is big business

pmorici 4y ago

The issue is the business processes the government uses to contract, and purchase products and services as well as the processes for moving money between different agencies and departments are horrendous and involve a lot of people. This is true wether the value involved is $1 or $1 million. If any of the people involved is incompetent or decides they aren’t going to do their part in a timely fashion you are screwed. Nothing will change until that changes.

MOARDONGZPLZ 4y ago
This is an interesting hypothesis and I’ll take it to mean that among all the things that need to be solved, the business process is the biggest one. Because clearly there are many problems that need to be solved. But I think the hypothesis fails a bit on its face. Setting aside the question of whether an agency has money of the correct color to spend on something like Cloud.gov, interagency acquisitions are a fairly well-trodden path. It’s a very regular thing for an agency to purchase goods from another agency, and while software purchases still have wrinkles, it’s generally been done and can be done. Not always super easy, but easier than you seem to be implying. This goes for interagency transfers of money as well, but that’s really its own thing. It requires willingness from both parties. Still needs to be made easier, but I would still argue that the personal liability that attaches to an agency official that comes with accepting the risk of a security breach or other information loss is the biggest blockage to change. Put more plainly, would you risk your personal interests that Cloud.gov is secure enough for you to deploy your agency’s application to? Most people would not take this risk, which is in my estimation the biggest reason among many you only see small, public projects like EPA’s AirNow tracker on cloud.gov and nothing more sensitive or closer to an agency’s core mission deployed there. My understanding last I heard, which was a while ago, is that Cloud.gov team is scrambling to get new clients because that’s largely how it pays for or supports itself. I expect it will be deprecated eventually and that will regrettably chill any future initiatives like this.
ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
that seems to be the problem the post purports to solve? if they don't handle the compliance hassle of FARS (and maybe DFARS), what is their value proposition?

thewanderer1983 4y ago

I can't speak for all departments but the one I worked for. There was huge mistrust between sections and other departments. If projects were joint and required working together it always stalled. I believe that public servants more broadly see reforms and technology as threats to jobs and tend to be hostile to these implementations. Culturally it's not a place that welcomes reforms, and likes business as usual. If you aren't a business and you have no incentive to be more productive and make profits. Why would you implement technologies that mean having to re-skill and more than likely bigger workload?