US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Embraces FOSS, Publishes On Github 38
New submitter gchaix writes "The U.S. Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has publicly embraced open source software and has begun posting its code to GitHub. From the article: 'Until recently, the federal government was hesitant to adopt open-source software due to a perceived ambiguity around its legal status as a commercial good. In 2009, however, the Department of Defense made it clear that open-source software products are on equal footing with their proprietary counterparts. We agree, and the first section of our source code policy is unequivocal: We use open-source software, and we do so because it helps us fulfill our mission. Open-source software works because it enables people from around the world to share their contributions with each other. The CFPB has benefited tremendously from other people's efforts, so it's only right that we give back to the community by sharing our work with others.'"
Government working for the people??? (Score:4, Funny)
It's a trap!
Re: (Score:3)
Ballmer will surely throw a chair at them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Government working for the people??? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the CFPB really is all about the people. The problem is that the government created them and then proceeded to do everything they could to keep them toothless when, holy shit, they were actually trying to protect consumers.
Most Senate Republicans have said they would block Cordray's nomination – or any other – unless the president agrees to changes that would replace the director with a panel, let Congress more easily cut the agency's budget and allow an oversight panel of banking regulators to more easily override bureau rules.
http://www.cleveland.com/consumeraffairs/index.ssf/2011/07/elizabeth_warren_leaving_the_c.html [cleveland.com]
Congress wants to have "oversight" on the commission so they can basically tell it "no" anytime it wants to enact some sort of serious protections for us. Richard Cordray seems like a good choice, but we won't really know until the Commission starts making policy.
How's that song go? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Proud to be an American..."
Been a while for me, too. I mean, I'm not tearing-up or anything, but it's something.
Right people in the right place (Score:2)
Whether private or government...when putting the right people in the right place....the thing can
be made to work with logic and sense.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Score:5, Informative)
Democrats created the agency after the wall street crash but put Republicans in a provision that the agency could not act untill congress approved the chief of the Bureau. Republicans proceeded to block appointments to the agency. Thus the agency was in limbo till Jan of this year. Obama appointed someone to head the agency with a legal recess appointment.
Few typos you had there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Recess appointments themselves are a procedural stunt. The proper way to have a nominee approved by the Senate (which at the moment is controlled by Democrats, by the way) is to nominate them while the Senate is IN SESSION and then have the Senate debate the whether the nominee would be good for the job.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Filibusters are great because most laws are awful. The more deadlocked that Congress gets the better it is for the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
That is great in a world where the senate does its job and approves any candidate who is not obviously unqualified that the Presidents appoints to a position.
Here in the real world the senate twists it's token approval authority to hijack the appointment process and deny perfectly qualified candidates. Or in this case to not only deny candidates but castrate an entire government agency.
Re: (Score:2)
The senate never going into recess started with Harry Reid under the Bush White House.
Re:Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Score:5, Interesting)
It was potentially illegal because Congress was not offically in recess. Republicans have gone out of the way to keep congress out of recess for the the last 3 years using procedural stunts.
What's interesting about that is that, although the Senate was engaging in a charade of a "session," Obama didn't actually have to wait for them to "adjourn." Article 3 gives the executive the power to declare congress in recess in situations where the houses are divided regarding going into recess--as they were at the time.
Why didn't he use it? It's spelled out in the constitution--not even an amendment, it's part of the original text--so what gives? Why not just issue an executive order that says "Pursuant to Article 3 powers of the executive, with both houses of congress in disagreement over whether to adjourn, I hereby declare them to be in recess until xyz date."
It wouldn't have been any kind of power-grab... It is the most constitutional thing he could have done, and would have been absolutely air-tight. He'd have out-manuevered the GOP, gotten his nominees appointed, and been able to move on. Instead, he gave his political enemies more ammunition to attack him with. Surely he has to have figured out they're going to be pissed and sue, no matter what he does, and that the Supreme Court fix is in, so he's got to conduct himself in a manner that is just absolutely constitutionally unquestionably allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Article 2, Section 3, Clause 2.
Oops! Thanks! Knew there was a 3 in there somewhere...
Democratic process VS. getting things your way (Score:1)
It was potentially illegal because Congress was not offically in recess. Republicans have gone out of the way to keep congress out of recess for the the last 3 years using procedural stunts.
It's a nasty hack to keep congress it in recess and it's just a bad a hack to abuse the recess for passing law without a proper mandate.
It seems like you Americans doesn't care about the democratic process as much as you care about getting whatever you think is right.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Excellent! Also: DoD open source software links (Score:4, Informative)
This is excellent news!
In some ways this policy (of the US Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) picks up from the the US Department of Defense (DoD) policies. Unfortunately, the DoD just changed the URLs for some of its information on Open Source Software (OSS), and doesn't (yet) have redirects, making them hard to find and compare. So here are new links to the DoD stuff on open source software, if you want them.
A good place to start is the Department of Defense (DoD) Free Open Source Software (FOSS) Community of Interest page, hosted by the DoD Chief Information Officer (CIO) [defense.gov].
From that page, you can reach:
If you are interested in the topic of DoD and OSS, you might also be interested in the Military Open Source Software (Mil-OSS) [mil-oss.org] group.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent! (Score:3)
Gov't learning to use git? (Score:1)
A pipe dream of mine is to have the various bills that go through the House and the Senate hosted on git, and open to patches and even forks before having a finalized version voted on in the executive branch, to bring a "we the people" element to the table in a way that would have been previously impossible. Legalese is just another programming language as far as git is concerned...
Not a small change, not a big one (Score:1)
First, don't expect a sea change in federal IT procurement. Just this year, I took a mandatory IT security training which repeatedly emphasized how (F)OSS is just a scam and we should never ever use it. The turnaround time for implementing (F)OSS in the federal government will be long. At least as long as it takes IT to stop refusing to install software unless you can provide a receipt for it...
Second, DoD is a tidal force in the government. They developed almost all the procurement systems in use today
head of CFPB character-assassinated in 3.2.1. (Score:2)
do you really think the multi billion dollar cluster fuck of govt servicing IT corporations and corrupt, bribed (campaign contributed) politicians is going to allow this to go on for much longer?
just wait a few months, the people at CFPB responsible for this will be accused of leaking classified info, raping a dog, or fucking a popsicle in a public place. don't expect the system to lie down and take this.