3 ms·

> I was part of the healthcare.gov "tech surge" and I can tell you firsthand that the government is willing to change. So, you worked for a short while on an e

> I was part of the healthcare.gov "tech surge" and I can tell you firsthand that the government is willing to change. So, you worked for a short while on an extremely high-profile project with the personal daily attention of the president. Yes, that does tend to smooth things over - but don't mistake that for a fundamental change in government priorities. There are 2.6 million federal employees, you don't re-jig politics and incentive structures that has been entrenched over decades overnight with a single successful project. Sure, showing that it can be done is always a good first step, and I'm not saying that anyone actively wants to fail - but only just barely. More often than not it feels that a failure you can blame on someone else is better than a mediocre success (good luck running an election campaign on having reduced the number of screens in a system or migrating it to AWS).

brandonb 12y ago
That seems rather cynical, doesn't it? Why don't you ask the people who work at USDS if they're having trouble getting interest from the agencies? That would be a way to test your hypothesis.
- engi_nerd 12y ago
  From my perspective as a former federal government employee, it seems more realistic than cynical. I agree that your second question would be a way to test this perception against reality.
- mseebach 12y ago
  Actually, I was responding to the GP stating a hypothesis. But my question would be this: Are your political sponsors (a number of rungs up) invested in your work? Are they willing to take flak for your team (ie. take personal career risk) when (yes, when) things go wrong and provide the cover to help you turn things around, or are they more likely to throw the cocky Google-kids under the bus and declare "experiment failed" the second things turn a bit sour, and return to business as usual? Now, answer the same question again, but 18 months from now, on the hypothetical that the next president isn't going to have this much on the agenda. What happens when heading the USDS doesn't mean briefing the president in the oval, but rather briefing a junior staffer to an undersecretary of the treasury? Getting positive answers to all those is what real change looks like.
- shillster 12y ago
  Tech reform begins with the NSA

brandonb 12y ago

That seems rather cynical, doesn't it? Why don't you ask the people who work at USDS if they're having trouble getting interest from the agencies? That would be a way to test your hypothesis.

engi_nerd 12y ago
From my perspective as a former federal government employee, it seems more realistic than cynical. I agree that your second question would be a way to test this perception against reality.
mseebach 12y ago
Actually, I was responding to the GP stating a hypothesis. But my question would be this: Are your political sponsors (a number of rungs up) invested in your work? Are they willing to take flak for your team (ie. take personal career risk) when (yes, when) things go wrong and provide the cover to help you turn things around, or are they more likely to throw the cocky Google-kids under the bus and declare "experiment failed" the second things turn a bit sour, and return to business as usual? Now, answer the same question again, but 18 months from now, on the hypothetical that the next president isn't going to have this much on the agenda. What happens when heading the USDS doesn't mean briefing the president in the oval, but rather briefing a junior staffer to an undersecretary of the treasury? Getting positive answers to all those is what real change looks like.
shillster 12y ago
Tech reform begins with the NSA