Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Submission + - Should the United States' new CTO really be a CIO? (

CurtMonash writes: "Barack Obama promised to appoint the United States' first Chief Technology Officer. Naturally, the blogosphere is full of discussion as to who that should be. I favor American Management Systems founder and former IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti. Richard Koman thinks it should be one of the better state CTOs. John Doerr, going in a different direction, thinks it should be his partner Bill Joy.

We can bandy names back and forth all month, but first a more fundamental question needs to be answered: What do we need most — a get-things-done CIO (Chief Information Officer), or a more visionary true CTO? I think it's a CIO, and based on his campaign statements it appears Obama agrees. Management of government IT is a huge, generally unsolved problem, and we need somebody deeply experienced to have even a fighting chance. Of course, that doesn't preclude recruiting a visionary CTO in addition, but the highest priority is a CIO.

Do Slashdot readers agree? [With Slashdot pages timing out, it's hard to know if a submission got in. I apologize if I wind up submitting multiple times!]"

This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Should the United States' new CTO really be a CIO?

Comments Filter:

A man is known by the company he organizes. -- Ambrose Bierce