Peter Quinn Explains his Resignation 125
JSBiff writes "Peter Quinn, former CIO of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, has given an interview to Pamela Jones over at Groklaw, regarding the people, companies, and events surrounding his resignation. He spins an interesting tale of Microsoft, money, and the politics of technology." From the article: "Now the folks that have say here do not know me from a hole in the wall and the funds were for projects that were totally unrelated to ITD. I clearly had set the priorities for the Bond but this funding is for projects like a new Taxpayers System, new Registry of Motor Vehicles system, etc., all projects desperately needed by the citizens of the Commonwealth. Eric Kriss and I always had a goal of making IT 'a'political and now it was rapidily becoming a political football of the highest magnitude. I took this job in the hopes of making meaningful and institutionalized IT reform. All the previous efforts were about to be for naught as political payback." We discussed Quinn's resignation last month.
For or Against? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll give him alot of credit for his perceived honesty in the interview. He seems to have come clean on why he was unable to be successful in his goals, and on the surface he seems to have noble intentions.
Shocked (Score:3, Insightful)
---
The key is to have the government do as little as possible. Then you can make your decisions, and I can make mine. When you decide for yourself, it's a personal question, not a political one. When the government decides, it's always going to be political.
This is the same issue as "decency" filters on (government) library computers. Politics decided that one too.
The only way everyone gets what they want is by taking it out of government hands.
Re:For or Against? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you really want the choice of what format documents are in, why don't you demand that Slashdot post their stories in DOC format, too? Slashdot is forcing you to use HTML right now.
For that matter, the normal thing will be for them to use ODF documents internally, but send out PDFs, since they aren't trying to make the documents they publish easy to edit. So use you be complaining that Slashdot's back end doesn't store their stories in DOC.
Re:For or Against? (Score:1, Insightful)
Last I checked, which was right now, OpenOffice.org supports exporting to Microsoft Word documents. So, no, he was decreasing choice by removing Microsoft Office, the most popular and widely used office program, from the list of acceptable programs.
If he really wanted to ensure "open standards" then he could have suggested something like HTML or CSV or any number of other truely open standards with wide support.
Or, even better, he could have simply not mandated any format at all. Why should any specific format be mandated? As long as someone can read it, does it matter what the format is? Just because you have some personal hangup about using Microsoft Office doesn't mean that the government should forcibly exclude it.
If you really thought this was about choice, then he should have been trying to get the state goverment to support as many different formats as possible. This wasn't about choice. This was about getting back at Microsoft. It's really sad to see that so many people have blinded themselves to this reality.
Re:Shocked (Score:2, Insightful)
What does that mean? Are you saying constituents don't want these filters? Family groups and both political parties wanted them. When you look outside your circle of geek friends you'll see regular people who really don't care and actually approve of crap like this. Essentially, you're just blaming this mysterious free-floating government thing while ignoring the constituents - family groups, christians, etc who demand filters. Its not like some bored fuctionary in some IT department decided to give himself more work. Its your congress at work - most notably your Republicans with the Christian groups. Last I checked these Christians were not "government" but people with a right to peitition their governments. They're creaming everyone else with their resources and connections. In other words, if you want change then you cant sit on some high horse and decry civilization, you need to work against these people. Are you up to it? Or will you continue down the path of the "southpark conservative" and just blame "government?"
Re:Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Ha. (Score:3, Insightful)
Apolitical politics (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at the bright side Mr. Quinn (Score:3, Insightful)
You will know the ups and downs of using Office and OpenOffice and have a good idea where to turn for assistance.
Your skills will be in high demand wherever you end up, and you will probably be a lot better off mentally and financially.
Best of luck to you.
Document accessability is what matters (Score:4, Insightful)
Cost of software is an issue, and certainly an important one.
More important, however, is accessibility and usability of government records. If important data and memos about an issue of today are locked up in a proprietary format which almost certainly won't be completely readable by the then current version of Office software in 2020 and beyond, then this is a real loss for all concerned! Moreover, citizens shouldn't have to own and use a particular piece of commercial software to be able to read documents which their own government produces. That's just plain wrong if there are simple and straightforward alternatives.
Re:For or Against? (Score:5, Insightful)
First, OpenOffice's support of Microsoft Word documents is not perfect, and it never will be because Microsoft will ensure they never have enough information to make it perfect. And that matters. I get Microsoft Word forms reasonably often, and OpenOffice doesn't really handle them all that well. And, there are a number of word processing programs (Abiword being an example) that handle Microsoft Word documents very poorly but handle ODF just fine. So, really, it was increasing choice, not decreasing it.
HTML and CSV are completely inadequate for office documents. HTML is an mediocre display format, and a lousy format for editing.
The question is, who owns the data? When the data is in a Microsoft proprietary format, Microsoft effectively owns the data. You either stay locked in the past forever (not really an option) or pay Microsoft whatever they ask for new software and the ability to read your old data.
It is beyond unacceptable for a government to be in this position. It basically sacrifices sovereignty to Microsoft. What law will Microsoft demand as a price for an upgrade? How much will people have to pay Microsoft in order to send the government a document their software can understand?
Already the deleterious effect of giving Microsoft so much control can be felt in the enormous political wrangling over this. Microsoft has been able to effectively force this guy to resign. It's utterly ridiculous.
Re:For or Against? (Score:5, Insightful)
It contains reverse engineered support, which is imperfect and can be yanked out at any time by one law from congress. Or by MS deciding to put an encryption on next years data model (making reverse engineering a DMCA violation).
Because the rule forces the *government* to release all documents in the ODF format. Previously, the government released it in any format it chose, which most likely was MS Office. Meaning if you don't shell out money for office, you won't be able to read governemnt forms and documents. The state of Massachusettes was forcing people to buy MS products in order to interact with it. Since ODF is a free format (as in beer), that means ANYONE with a computer can now open government documents, where previously only people who bought MS software could. This is the way things should be- government documents should be open to ALL citizens.
If you wish to use MS products, you still can- either convince MS to support ODF, or convert the ODF files to
Re:For or Against? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe the Globe should be investigating those representatives, senators and general officers that tried to kill ODF. But they won't. Money talks and bullshit walks.
Re:Apolitical politics (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't understand Government.
The greatest aspect, and greatest failure of our form of Democratic government is that ostensibly, government employees should be apolitical. Elected officials are political; appointed officials and government employees/workers are NOT political.
Some people even actually try to hold to this; the opposite of this, politics among the beauracrats is the purest definition of "corruption".
Re:Shocked (Score:3, Insightful)
Libertarian political rhetoric is retarded. You know what happens when a bunch of people work together to provide common resources and to regulate themselves as a community? You get what is called a "government".
Re:Shocked (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell, while we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater, unplug your fat DOD funded internet while youre at it.
I love my local library system, both here in the city and when I lived in the suburbs. Being a kid with no money but having access to all the best sci-fi in the world, other fiction, and non-fiction was one of the best things to ever happen to me. Back before computers were affordable it was the place where I could go to get word processing done and even play a game! Right now people without internet access depend on them for the basic information you're spoiled to have. Oh no, the horrors of "big government" (the US government is tidy compared to some of europe and scandanavia its your military thats huge) led to people getting books for free! How will big publishing survive?!?
Go back to watching southpark in your mom's basement. Thanks.
feigned outrage ... Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)