Re:10 contenders (and one real long shot) for Obama's CTO
by ilamont on Monday November 17, 2008 @03:35PM
(#367316)
I wrote the article, and I found your comment about the three non-celebs to be quite interesting. Do you think their government/Washington experience be seen as an asset, or a hindrance in an Obama administration?
I also wonder how sharp billionaire tech entrepreneurs would fare running a federal bureaucracy and dealing with Congress.
Anyone?
Re:10 contenders (and one real long shot) for Obama's CTO
by gaius on Monday November 17, 2008 @04:35PM
(#367386)
Why did you not consider Burt Rutan? He is a genuine pioneer (i.e. he doesn't just do stuff with computers, he's out there risking his life) and he has plenty of experience of working with government.
Re:10 contenders (and one real long shot) for Obama's CTO
by ilamont on Monday November 17, 2008 @04:48PM
(#367404)
I hadn't heard or read that he was being considered, or that others had recommended him/think he would be a good choice.
Since I wrote this, I've heard three new names. It might warrant a follow-up ...
* Lessig and Felten are dead in the water; while I mostly agree with them, they're ideologues on topics that will make them Senate-unconfirmable (is this position Senate-confirmable?). Also, neither of them have applicable management experience.
* Schmidt isn't leaving Google.
* Bill Joy doesn't have any management experience, although he's clearly campaigning for the spot.
* Ballmer and Bezos seems plausible; Ballmer might take it as life raft from Microsoft, and Bezos seems open to random ventures. By the way, I'd be thrilled to see it be Bezos.
* The three non-celebs (Genachowski, Shah, Gips) seem like they're shortlisted.
I think we're probably paying a lot more attention to this CTO title than the transition team is, given our biases.