[IP] Re: Obama CTO

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh@syr.edu>
Date: January 6, 2009 11:30:28 AM EST
To: <dave@farber.net>
Subject: RE: [IP] Re:   Obama CTO

David:

For your consideration:

The IT assumption is reasonable. Since the Federal Government is  
(mainly) an information processing engine, the most broadly relevant  
tech expertise for a federal CTO is IT.

Anything else matters to a narrower slice of executive branch  
agencies. It could well be that someone with a background in another  
technical area is also good at IT, and hence suitable.

But if you can;t make huge (and hugely inefficient) information  
engines run better then please do not apply.

Lee


-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net]
Sent: Mon 1/5/2009 8:44 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Re:   Obama CTO



Begin forwarded message:

From: "John Ryan" <john.conor.ryan@gmail.com>
Date: January 5, 2009 7:49:21 PM EST
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: Re: [IP] Digest 1.1930 for ip

For your consideration:

Dave: in everything (or nearly everything) I've read about the Obama
CTO, it's assumed, as implicit, that the T stands for IT. Need it?
Should not a cabinet-level or cabinet-advisory CTO also consider
biotech, energy, transportation, ...
Thus, the apparently terrific Washington IT guy might be qualified as
a CITO, but come on folks, as much as I like IT, surely we're missing
some of the picture. Shouldn't the CTO also, like many CTOs in 'real
life' have to look at what technologies to invest in strategically?
And a national IP (not Internet Protocol but Intellectual Property)
policy? These are larger issues than 'just' IT.

John Ryan
(COO Pixel Qi, but that's not why I'm writing)
jpr@pixelqi.com




-------------------------------------------

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

-------------------------------------------