Not to mention, political parties aren't transparently run in many cases like we've seen in 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak. Most likely, these people are feeding off of their political connections and harvesting donation money from not just the party, but also the candidates [2].
This is also why I'm no longer donating to a political party directly, or a candidate who would in turn would do the same. It seems like the only independent candidate running under democratic party is keeping his campaign money in-house.
[1] https://www.crn.com/slide-shows/applications-os/who-is-shado...
[2] https://twitter.com/BustinTrudeau/status/1224697566182498306
It looks like multiple campaigns (including the one the most to lose and the one with most to gain from a confusing Iowa) paid Shadow for services - Buttigieg’s campaign was not an investor, and does not appear to have anything to do with the development of the app. Do you have any sources for your claim?
> Some claims, such as that the Iowa caucus app was funded by Buttigieg, mischaracterize what we know.
> Buttigieg’s campaign wasn’t involved in the app’s development.
This was not my claim at all
Why isn't the DNC harder on crap like this?
Well, for starters, because the DNC doesn't run the Iowa caucus.
Additionally, the Iowa dem caucus (and primaries) aren't a governmental thing, the political parties aren't government organizations - they're private organizations that are just _all about the government and politics_ as such the Iowa caucus is really weirdly in a grey zone where there is even less necessary oversight than the administration of the general election in Iowa will have - but sort of more oversight since the DNC could just reject the results outright... Buuuut things like the voting rights act have forced some regulations into primary operation - it's all quite confusing...
The TL;DR though is that the DNC doesn't technically run the Iowa caucus but is more than capable of making the Iowa dem caucus committee feel a whole lot of pain and hold them accountable.
The app itself doesn’t sound like it needed to be that complex, and by all accounts, it wasn’t. But it feels like the company believed that the secret to a successful rollout was to ask the developer beforehand “are you sure there won’t be any problems?”
Every time I’ve been involved in releasing a web service, the step before “tell the world that the software is live” has been “make one or more complete end-to-end requests to make sure everything is running correctly.” The company clearly skipped that step: they announced the project was live without first making a single end-to-end request. We know that because the problems people reported and the problems that the company has described would have made it impossible for any upload to succeed.
To those devs, jr or otherwise - every step that was supposed to protect against a failure in the app seems to have failed here, and you should not feel bad. Mistakes happen and should be expected, but the damage that they are allowed to wreck is the blame of poor management, not you.