SoylentNews

Obama Takes Step to Improve Government Technology

posted by azrael on Tuesday August 12 2014, @02:27PM   
from the even-bigger-government dept.

AnonTechie writes:

On Monday the White House announced the creation of a team of digital experts tasked with upgrading the government's technology infrastructure and making its websites more consumer friendly.

The move is aimed at avoiding a repeat of the website debacle that marred the rollout of President Barack Obama's signature health care legislation last year. While the administration ultimately surpassed its enrollment targets, the opening weeks of sign-ups were riddled with website troubles that raised questions about the administration's competence.

The new digital team will be overseen by Mikey Dickerson, an engineer who took leave from Google in order to oversee fixes to the HealthCare.gov site. 

• Re:Can the "digital team" spend money? Re:Can the "digital team" spend money? (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 13 2014, @07:38AM

  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 13 2014, @07:38AM (#80725)

  if a team of experts is given authority to spend taxpayer money, where do you think it will be spent?

  1) companies in which the experts hold stock
  2) companies in which the experts are employed or have family/friends employed or own
  3) companies that give them the most stuff on the side, have the most comfy private jets, and host them for the most junkets
  4) companies that have the most political clout with politicians that hold sway over the team
  5) all of the above

  6) on an objectively investigated cost-effective solution that best serves the interest of the american people

  Parent

  Starting Score:	0		points
  Moderation		+1
  Insightful=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Insightful' Modifier		0
  Total Score:		1

• Re:Can the "digital team" spend money? (Score: -1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 13 2014, @11:01AM

  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 13 2014, @11:01AM (#80755)

  If the experts are any good, 1 and 2 are likely to be much better options than whatever is currently being done, even if they're not optimal, so it's still a net win. If furthermore the experts actually have any self-respect for what they do, 3, 4, and 5 are unlikely to happen to any significant degree.

  Of course, this being the government, the "experts" are statistically unlikely to be any good in the first place, so the rest of the arguments are kind of moot.

  Parent