5 ms·

It's ridiculous each state is building it's own solution. The federal government should have created a FOSS flexible platform that each state could customize a

It's ridiculous each state is building it's own solution. The federal government should have created a FOSS flexible platform that each state could customize and contribute back to.

dethstar 12y ago
FOSS is so good for government idk why there isn't more of it, of course having someone to blame for/call when something is not working is what they look for. I wonder if having functional software isn't better.
- Nerdfest 12y ago
  FOSS doesn't pay for golf vacations for purchasers.
- ams6110 12y ago
  FOSS requires competent contributors who care about what they are building. This doesn't describe most federal workers.
  - forkandwait 12y ago
    I think that is a pretty big overgeneralization, to be generous.
- jrapdx3 12y ago
  Sure I think something like Cover Oregon could be an open-source project. The problem is the need for expert management of the project, very much the issue in Oregon: relying on Oracle to manage the project turned out to be an expensive mistake. Plenty of open source talent in Oregon. I imagine there'd be many volunteers for a big DB/web project. It should be possible to do, after all, would Cover Oregon be more complex than Firefox or the Linux kernel? In theory, not be all that difficult to hire a good project management team, set up the framework and let contributors work on it. Probably get done much quicker and of course, at way less cost. Of course, doing that is taking a risk which is routinely avoided by timid bureaucrats and enterprises. Though the lesson of Oregon's experience is there to be learned--it shows the far bigger risks of doing things the same old way.
  - harry8 12y ago
    You can hire private corporations and even pay large sums of money (like 1/100th of this is a very big sum) with a proviso that all the code be published under some Free license. This is not advocating self-organizing cat herding with multiple entities donating developer time. Hire bigco, publish what they give you so the neighbours can also use it and you're not stuck with bigco for support. ie you can also fire bigco if they suck once you hired them.
    - jrapdx3 12y ago
      An interesting idea, a kind of gradually-open model of participation. Could work if the source or (selected part of it) is incrementally released from time to time, so at least there's opportunity for open participation if in a more structured manner. Ultimately, the entire source is made available, but by then it works according to specs and has been constructed sanely. Maybe my interpretation of your idea wouldn't work exactly as you has in mind, but I see your point, that maintaining greater control of the development process would likely lead to a more coherent and predictable product that functions in accordance with carefully designed specs. Among flies in the ointment is the necessity for such a highly principled and skilled steering group to manage the effort with the requisite wisdom around scheduling releases and titrating the level of community involvement. The level of talent it implies is likely in short supply. That said, an admiral proposal, distinctly possible, even revolutionary. To quote Spinoza, "all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare".
      - harry8 12y ago
        No. I'm not being clear. Hire eg IBM global services to build you the solution. In the contract it states clearly, part of the deliverable is the source code that will be published under xyz license. Whether you hire IBM, Oracle, Accenture etc or do something a lot less moronic you insist on source and insist on being assigned the copyright to it and you publish it. Every time. Always. That's the step forward I am suggesting. Not the linux kernel model of development. If such a thing arose for particular projects, great. But it's not a requirement nor the goal.
michaelt 12y ago
My theory is it goes something like this: 1. "The government is inefficient and doesn't have much experience with big IT projects." We should outsource things to the private sector, like we do the design of bridges and fighter jets. 2. Consultants want to maximise their profit by maximising billable hours. Obviously they don't recommend sharing things between states. Far more profitable to design a shitty 'enterprise grade' mess that will take ages to build, that nobody will compete to maintain, and that will need lots of (billable) maintenance. 3. The project fails, wasting loads of money. 4. People see all this wasted money. They conclude the government is inefficient. 5. People who know how to deliver working software see shitty designs, shitty incentives, and expensive cancellations. They conclude working on government IT projects would be bad for their sanity and their resume. 6. "The government is inefficient and doesn't have much experience with big IT projects."
ams6110 12y ago
In general the federal government can't order states to do things.
- hnriot 12y ago
  they should be able to for things like this, it's a grotesque waste of money for states to build their own system. It would be as insane as each state having it's own army or space program.
hnriot 12y ago
it is absolutely ridiculous, they (the federal government) could have (did) build their own system and then host it for each of the states. Better still, host it in the ones where electricity can be generated cheaply. This is whole reason we have a federal system.
pyvpx 12y ago
why should it be top down? that's quite unamerican, in my opinion! one of the numerous cities, counties, and towns of various sizes and locales can develop solutions that may apply outside of their specific jurisdiction. the very "best" (scalable/widely applicable) solutions are supposed to bubble up. that's the idea behind american federalism!

It's ridiculous each state is building it's own solution. The federal government should have created a FOSS flexible platform that each state could customize and contribute back to.

dethstar 12y ago

FOSS is so good for government idk why there isn't more of it, of course having someone to blame for/call when something is not working is what they look for. I wonder if having functional software isn't better.

Nerdfest 12y ago
FOSS doesn't pay for golf vacations for purchasers.
ams6110 12y ago
FOSS requires competent contributors who care about what they are building. This doesn't describe most federal workers.
- forkandwait 12y ago
  I think that is a pretty big overgeneralization, to be generous.
jrapdx3 12y ago
Sure I think something like Cover Oregon could be an open-source project. The problem is the need for expert management of the project, very much the issue in Oregon: relying on Oracle to manage the project turned out to be an expensive mistake. Plenty of open source talent in Oregon. I imagine there'd be many volunteers for a big DB/web project. It should be possible to do, after all, would Cover Oregon be more complex than Firefox or the Linux kernel? In theory, not be all that difficult to hire a good project management team, set up the framework and let contributors work on it. Probably get done much quicker and of course, at way less cost. Of course, doing that is taking a risk which is routinely avoided by timid bureaucrats and enterprises. Though the lesson of Oregon's experience is there to be learned--it shows the far bigger risks of doing things the same old way.
- harry8 12y ago
  You can hire private corporations and even pay large sums of money (like 1/100th of this is a very big sum) with a proviso that all the code be published under some Free license. This is not advocating self-organizing cat herding with multiple entities donating developer time. Hire bigco, publish what they give you so the neighbours can also use it and you're not stuck with bigco for support. ie you can also fire bigco if they suck once you hired them.
  - jrapdx3 12y ago
    An interesting idea, a kind of gradually-open model of participation. Could work if the source or (selected part of it) is incrementally released from time to time, so at least there's opportunity for open participation if in a more structured manner. Ultimately, the entire source is made available, but by then it works according to specs and has been constructed sanely. Maybe my interpretation of your idea wouldn't work exactly as you has in mind, but I see your point, that maintaining greater control of the development process would likely lead to a more coherent and predictable product that functions in accordance with carefully designed specs. Among flies in the ointment is the necessity for such a highly principled and skilled steering group to manage the effort with the requisite wisdom around scheduling releases and titrating the level of community involvement. The level of talent it implies is likely in short supply. That said, an admiral proposal, distinctly possible, even revolutionary. To quote Spinoza, "all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare".
    - harry8 12y ago
      No. I'm not being clear. Hire eg IBM global services to build you the solution. In the contract it states clearly, part of the deliverable is the source code that will be published under xyz license. Whether you hire IBM, Oracle, Accenture etc or do something a lot less moronic you insist on source and insist on being assigned the copyright to it and you publish it. Every time. Always. That's the step forward I am suggesting. Not the linux kernel model of development. If such a thing arose for particular projects, great. But it's not a requirement nor the goal.

michaelt 12y ago

My theory is it goes something like this: 1. "The government is inefficient and doesn't have much experience with big IT projects." We should outsource things to the private sector, like we do the design of bridges and fighter jets. 2. Consultants want to maximise their profit by maximising billable hours. Obviously they don't recommend sharing things between states. Far more profitable to design a shitty 'enterprise grade' mess that will take ages to build, that nobody will compete to maintain, and that will need lots of (billable) maintenance. 3. The project fails, wasting loads of money. 4. People see all this wasted money. They conclude the government is inefficient. 5. People who know how to deliver working software see shitty designs, shitty incentives, and expensive cancellations. They conclude working on government IT projects would be bad for their sanity and their resume. 6. "The government is inefficient and doesn't have much experience with big IT projects."

ams6110 12y ago

In general the federal government can't order states to do things.

hnriot 12y ago
they should be able to for things like this, it's a grotesque waste of money for states to build their own system. It would be as insane as each state having it's own army or space program.

hnriot 12y ago

it is absolutely ridiculous, they (the federal government) could have (did) build their own system and then host it for each of the states. Better still, host it in the ones where electricity can be generated cheaply. This is whole reason we have a federal system.

pyvpx 12y ago

why should it be top down? that's quite unamerican, in my opinion! one of the numerous cities, counties, and towns of various sizes and locales can develop solutions that may apply outside of their specific jurisdiction. the very "best" (scalable/widely applicable) solutions are supposed to bubble up. that's the idea behind american federalism!