First I'll add the disclaimer that this is my personal opinion. I'm not speaking for anyone other than myself.

I think the mission of the US Digital Service is fundamentally non-partisan: we want to make government work better for the American people. When a veteran can apply for health benefits online, they have a better experience. But it also saves the money from them driving to see someone in person. There's so much work like that to do that everyone agrees will make the government better, more responsive, and more efficient.

I also think the USDS has built up some reputation and trust because of the good work that it's been able to do so far. I'm heartened when folks like Kevin McCarthy (majority leader in the House of Representatives) tweet things like this: https://twitter.com/gopleader/status/796823547343736837

At Google, I didn't always agree with what the CEO decided to do, like shutting down Google Reader. Sigh. But there was a ton of important work to do, and concentrating on the common ground made it possible to do really good things.

How do you think the USDS is going to change in the next few months since you sit in the office of the president? I'm not asking for your personal opinion of the next administration, but I'm really not expecting a smooth transition. So are you expecting any major changes?

A lot of people are coming up on the end of their one or two year terms, so we'll be managing that transition. I will say that to the degree the next administration is interesting in modernizing technology in the government, there's a ton of great work that can be done. I believe there's a solid interest in that.

> I think the mission of the US Digital Service is fundamentally non-partisan: we want to make government work better for the American people.

Couldn't most agencies claim the same?

Yup. The next level down of detail would be "using technology or best practices from the tech industry."

"we want to make government work better for the American people."

Sadly I don't think this is a non-partisan goal these days.

The goal of better government is non-partisan outside the drown-it-in-the-bathtub fringe. How to go about it is what leads to contention.

> First I'll add the disclaimer that this is my personal opinion. I'm not speaking for anyone other than myself.

And there it is. One of many reasons I'll never work for the government again. The government is so PC-sensitive that dude can't even post on HN without a mildly disguised form of legalese. When I was in the Air Force, everything I said had to be prefaced with

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Air force, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

One might think this is a minor complaint but after years of death by 1,000 cuts, you just can't take it anymore.

To be fair, I often said that online when I was working for Google as well.

This is common amongst all megacorps. They can use anything you say on social media against you if it makes them look bad. The disclaimer doesn't really matter but I still put one in my profile. Basically, it's not just the government that goes too far into private life.

Except that's also policy for most large corporations, as well. If you're working at some place like Microsoft or Google, it's required policy that you preface anything you say about Microsoft or Google with a statement that these statements are your personal opinions only and do not reflect the policy of the company.

You're pretty lucky to have never been in a position where you could be misconstrued as speaking for your employer, regardless of who they are. The Internet has basically neutralized the PR departments of any organization, governmental or otherwise, that wishes to control a message. CEOs tweeting about a bad day could have actual financial impacts. In this case, Matt doesn't speak for the USDS or the United States Government, he's sharing his opinions. That is not PC, it's protocol. That disclaimer could also have referred to his time at Google - he, personally, thought shutting down Google Reader was a bad idea, but Google, as a corporation, clearly did not, so his statement does not represent Google.

I am honestly curious if the powers that be at Google who made that decision would still say it was a good idea to do so. Obviously they saved some money since it was unprofitable to operate, pushing people off RSS readers may have improved ad revenue, etc. But of all the product shutdowns that have happened at Google, none has come back to haunt Google more after the fact as Reader.

I wonder, in retrospect, if causing that backlash would still not be seen as a mistake.

It is very common on HN to put a disclaimer like this on posts. I do not think this has anything to do with Matt working for the government.

There exist people that are happy to take a personal statement and attribute it to the author's employer to score political points at the author's expense. When I use this disclaimer it's chiefly for my own benefit.