Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
IT Government Politics

Challenge to Transfer IT Power in MA 243

Andy Updegrove writes "Linda Hamel, the General Counsel of the Massachusetts department that is struggling to establish ODF for state use, has prepared a challenge to those in the State Senate that would strip State CIO Peter Quinn of his power to set IT policy. Her analysis graphically describes why a task force of political appointees has no business telling more than 2000 IT professionals what to do."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Challenge to Transfer IT Power in MA

Comments Filter:
  • Obviously! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Her analysis graphically describes why a task force of political appointees has no business telling more than 2000 IT professionals what to do.

    I'm glad that somebody has a clue. Micromanagement is obviously the job of your Pointy Haired Boss.
    • Re:Obviously! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TubeSteak ( 669689 )
      Her analysis graphically describes

      Maybe it's just my computer nerdism showing, but if you're going to say "graphically" shouldn't there be... I dunno. A graph?

      Was anyone else let down that there were no graphs? Not even a single picture.

      Instead, we have a summary of "17 single-spaced pages of closely reasoned argument and information that Linda has crafted." Worse, her document is going to be "part of the Legislative Information Package relating to the proposed amendment."

      Not to be cynical, but very few Mas
  • by SQLz ( 564901 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @12:43AM (#14236543) Homepage Journal
    I sense those in the state senate have shiny new Swiss bank accounts. Its funny how much Senators care when they are paid shills.
  • I blinked... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Seraphnote ( 655201 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @12:46AM (#14236552)
    So the ODF opponents couldn't win their arguments to stick with MS formats, so instead they try restructuring the Government of MA??? This is just plum sick!
    • We're lucky that this is the case, because at least it'll be put to a vote by a large group of people, not all of whom are shills. Just be glad the shill isn't a federal judge -- a single point of failure with the power to set precedence, and accountable to no one. That type of thing works out when you agree with his decision, but it's a real bitch when you don't.
    • I laughed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by twitter ( 104583 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @10:26AM (#14238211) Homepage Journal
      [M$] couldn't win their arguments to stick with MS formats, so instead they try restructuring the Government of MA???

      People joke that Louisiana is the northernmost bananna republic. I hope not to have to welcome Mass to the club, but turnabout is fair play.

      The more I think about it, the more Microsoft looks like the United Fruit Company. The only differences are that the United Fruit Company actually built real infrastructure, like railroads, and you can only grow a bananna in the tropics. It looks like you can farm PCs and treat their users like peons at any latitude.

      Let's see if a great US state with some of the best IT staff and best universities for IT in the world can resist bribery and persue excellence. If they can't, no one can. That's what this is all about. The world is watching and M$ is desperate to "demonstrate" that IT experts want M$ junk.

      What's funny is that their demonstration proves only that M$ is used only because it's forced on people by idiots.

  • by superid ( 46543 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @12:51AM (#14236573) Homepage
    ....I just want them to get their collective scat together. I am on the board of a non-profit organization and I have to file "articles of amendment" using a state form. It is a pdf. It was not authored as a fill-in form and as far as I can tell it is not editable in any way (I made a half hearted attempt with a full version of Adobe 5)

    I asked the office of the secretary of state if there was an alternative format since I could not edit the document for electronic submittal. I was told (actual quote) "Our only suggestion would be to locate a typewriter; most likely at your local public library."

    • your document shoudlbe stored in another format and then converted to PDF before submital. There are PDF converters around with varying degrees of success at converting documents from PFD to Word or some othe format if you cannot find another copy of the articles.

      I ran into this a while back while assisting a preacher with the same problems when two churches were merging. The merger fell through but before it happened, I ended up retyping almost an entire 40 pages of amended articles by hand. (i don't type
    • by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:36AM (#14236719) Journal
      It is a pdf. It was not authored as a fill-in form and as far as I can tell it is not editable in any way (I made a half hearted attempt with a full version of Adobe 5)

      You have several options...

      On Windows you can use the free Foxit PDF reader, which allows you to write text overlayed on PDFs, and allows you to print the results. I would suggest printing to file, with any postscript (PS) print driver, then convert to PDF with ghostscript, ps2pdf.com, acrobat distiller, etc.

      On Unix or Windows, you can open PDFs using GIMP, and add in text like you would with any image. Then you can convert the images to a big PDF document if you like.

      Personally, I would use something like pdf2html (requires ghostscript), and edit the resulting HTML document. From there you can decide if you want to return it as HTML, or convert it back into PDF.
    • I think I have a "pencil" around here somewhere you could borrow.
    • Efax is free.
      Print the form, fill it out with sloppy handwriting forcing someone to puzzle their way through it.
      Efax it to yourself, and you get a 200dpi scanned copy.
      Email the resulting tif file to them.

      When they complain about the unreadability, explain that perhaps a fillable form would have been better.
  • So what? (Score:5, Funny)

    by jaseparlo ( 819802 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @12:51AM (#14236575) Homepage
    The rest of us have to contend with IT management that have little to no IT experience, skill or qualification, why should the MA state IT dept be any different?
    • Because the defective, drain-bamaged management of your private-sector organization doesn't effect the lives and livelihoods of an entire State full of people.
    • Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @03:02AM (#14236952)
      The salient point here is that the CIO makes a decision that MS does not like. MS then "meets" with the executive branch and exchanges "goodwill" and a few nudges and winks. Next think you know the executive branch wants to strip the CIO of the power to make technological decisions.

      If I was a MA resident I would be extremely alarmed.
      • by CrazedWalrus ( 901897 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @07:44AM (#14237545) Journal
        Sorry, but I need to pick a nit. It seems that the nudge-n-wink was directed to the legislature, in an effort to deprive the executive branch of their IT autonomy. I know people here are eager to dump on "this administration", whomever that may be at the time, but this time, "this administration" are our heroes.

        • Mod this up (Score:3, Informative)

          by shis-ka-bob ( 595298 )
          This is clearly a case of state Seantors attempting to alter the executive branch's good faith efforts to run IT in the interests of the citizens. So mod this up, the grandparent post was wrong to blame the executive branch.
  • by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @12:53AM (#14236584) Journal
    that no matter what decision is made in Mass., it *WILL* affect similar decisions around the globe. Even if the 'govermment' of Mass. decides to do things in a completely hair-brined way, others will see it for what it is. Not every state has a setup where the position of state CIO is in question, or could be.

    The simple fact that this is becoming a 3-ring circus of zealous charicatures means that it will continue to be an issue around the globe for longer than it takes Mass. to cash the checks from Microsoft. More likely than not, if MS wins the 'contract' battle, another virus will put paid to the value of that decision. Even if ODF is not firmly established in the Mass. IT arena, it is gaining ground elsewhere, and this circus just gives more publicity to the reasons for having ODF in the first place.
    • The thing is that Microsoft is playing a game of whack-a-mole with OpenOffice.org, and all the time, it's getting faster and harder for them as more people see the merits of the alternative.

      Companies are harder to influence than government, because the people running them have a direct self-interest in cutting costs. This is particularly so for small companies.

      I'm starting to wonder how soon it will be that it will be acceptable to start sending out ODF files to people on the assumption that there's a 7

  • by Cherita Chen ( 936355 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @12:53AM (#14236586) Homepage
    Peter Korn of Sun Microsystems has put together a very impressive collection of data and analysis on the ODF controversy on his blog site. Definitly worth a look if you wish to get the full story...

    http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/korn/LargePrintWe blog/20051113 [sun.com]

  • Cost control move (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BigSlowTarget ( 325940 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @12:55AM (#14236593) Journal
    While its obviously not the whole story, this move does have all the classic fingerprints of a sourcing effort shooting for savings through leveraged negotiations with vendors. With control of all the

    "(1) procurement policies by commonwealth agencies, constitutional offices, and other government entities concerning computer hardware and software, cellular telephones, personal data accessories, and other information technology devices"

    the single office in charge of contracting can force standardization and negotate discounted contracts. Combine that with implied savings from standardization of technologies and resulting reduction in support costs and you get a nice presentation at the end of the year that you can show all your bosses showing you saved the state $X million. With that level of spending the $X is going to be a mighty big number.

    If its not something like that then somebody better make very sure any contract signed is arms length - the next most obvious rationale would be lining one's pockets.
    • That's just silly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NickFortune ( 613926 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @04:21AM (#14237116) Homepage Journal
      If Peter Quin was just interested in getting a discount on MS software, I think the deal would have been done by now. If he was interested in a little private graft, ditto.

      Think of how much it must have cost MS to "influence" all the people needed so that restructuring a state legislature isn't dismissed out of hand. To say nothing of the PR groups, the pay-for-pay reporting (mentioning no names, Boston Globe) and all the rest of it.

      Anything Quinn might have wanted - it would have been cheaper to just give it to him. The fact that this wrangle is still going on suggests that this isn't about negotiated discounts or personal profit. Especially since Microsoft's preserving their highly lucrative office software monopoly with its 75% profit margins remains a far more plausible explanation.

      Oh, and speaking of the Boston Globe, did you know they printed complete retraction of the smear job they did on Qinn? Right in the back where no-one would see it, but printed nevertheless. With all the current attempts to smear Quinn, I think any genuine dirt would have surfaced by now.

      Lacking any actual wrongdoing, the best they can manage is cheap innuendo

  • First the disclaimer: I don't live in Massachusetts (thank Ghod) and haven't actually read all the material involved. On the surface it just looks like the transfer of power from one set of non-elected bureaucrats to another set of non-elected bureaucrats. But this tidbit caught my eye
    I have previously noted that the amendment would not only take control of procurement and standards policy away from the State agencies directly involved in architecting, buying, deploying and training, but would also take the same power away from the heretofore autonomous municipalities of Massachusetts as well - exercising hegemony, in other words, over thousands of town halls, libraries, first responders, and much more.
    For me, if true, this is the deal-breaker and sufficient reason to oppose the transfer: it violates the principles of federalism and subsidiarity, i.e., that power should always devolve to the lowest level of government capable of carrying it out, or to the people themselves. Any transfer from local government, which tends to be more accesable to actual citizens, to higher echelons of non-elected bureaucratic elites, is Bad News. (Absolute centeralization of power corrupts absolutely. For more on that, see the UN Oil-for-Food scandal.) That is reason enough alone to oppose the measure, regardless of any other issues involved.

    • thank Ghod

      How do you know Ghod [slashdot.org]? What does he have to do with this? Confused ...
    • by general_re ( 8883 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:52AM (#14236755) Homepage
      it violates the principles of federalism and subsidiarity, i.e., that power should always devolve to the lowest level of government capable of carrying it out, or to the people themselves.

      That's certainly not a principle of the American federal system. The state is the unit of sovereignty, historically speaking - power flows to local governments from the state, not to the state from local governments as you assert. Municipalities have as much or as little legal authority as the state grants them - no more and no less. In that light, this move is perfectly in accord with American traditions of federalism - the state of Massachusetts is simply retaking a power it almost certainly granted to local governments in the first place.

      This should not be construed as an argument that it's necessarily a wise move, merely that the principles of federalism are not somehow discordant with it. You can certainly also argue that power should flow the way you wish it to, from the bottom up, but that's definitely not how it is now, nor is that how it's ever been.

    • You're thinking of the tenth amendment to the constitution reads:

      "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

      Then again, there's the commerce clause which states:

      "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

      Clearly, if the states adopt incompatible document standards, there would be a problem. Ostensibly, Congress dealt with this issu

  • by shoolz ( 752000 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:08AM (#14236627) Homepage
    Am I the only one who can't follow this article? It has no introduction... so I have no way of knowing what it's trying to say.
    • It apears you have to read his other blogs/comments on the subject, follow it closly, or guess at it. It apears to be writen for those in the know and who are already following the situation.

      From what I know of the situation, The controversy of opendocument has reached so far that the state government wants to create a taskforce that controls all IT decisions with 3 people in related business and 5 more who might not be in th now of those issues that take the IT decision makeing away form thenormal guy who
    • It's trying to say that regardless of the merits of OpenDocument and of the folly of remaining tied to a proprietory file format, it is nevertheless foolish to remove the power to make IT decisions from someone recruited because of his understanding of the field, and to place it the hands of a committee of political appointees and industry reps.

      This is based both on Quinn being better qualified to make the such decisons than most of the comittee, and on the inefficiency and potential dangers involved in

  • by OneSeventeen ( 867010 ) * on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:17AM (#14236663) Homepage Journal

    The last time I was in an IT position as a developer/data analyst at a fortune 100 company, myself and the other memebers of the team kept saying, "Hey ******, things are technilogically bad here, and the IT department agrees, we really need to step things up and make the following 5 changes: ", (then we listed 5 boring, but neccessary changes).

    So after that, ****** decided to hire a team of IBM consultants to determine what the real problem was. They promptly had a meeting with us, where we shared our 5 changes that needed to be made, and were told a week later that IBM came up with 5 amazing outside-the-box changes to turn the company around.

    A year and a half later, I'm at a different job where I make the decisions, and ****** is in the same position they were before, with more and more money being poured into consultants while the IT professionals remain unheard.

    And, just another warning about IT professionals: I had a boss once that refused to allow me to install a Linux-based webserver, and instead poured over $800 into software simply to run IIS. It took a few weeks to get the software in, another week to get it configured, and yet another week to lock it down tight and get the file permissions to run properly. (keep in mind IIS kindly ignores windows file permissions on a fairly random basis, at least from my experience.) Now that that IT Professional has left to do ASP development elsewhere, I spent 3 days learning how to set up a linux webserver and lock it down, and 1 day actually carrying out what I learned. It has thus far cost us nothing, and we have yet to get a virus.

    IT professionals are the #1 target it seems for Microsoft donations, so its no wonder most are drooling over Microsoft Office software. Most individuals I've worked with (even the Microsoft Certified Developers) have chosen Open Source solutions this past year because of how much they've developed, and how easy they are to work with. Maybe we need a bureaucratic geek to make the decisions anyway, since the self proclaimed IT Professionals either aren't doing such a hot job, or don't have the power to make these decisions anyway.

    One last bit of info: forcing the use of non-proprietary software for developing publically available documents should be federal law by now, IMO, and using proprietary software should be considered obstructing access to the public domain. Why not tear down the wheelchair ramps while we're at it? And if Microsoft is truly non-proprietary in their new XML format, then let's use that too, but don't side with a single vendor when a globally available standard is sitting there, free of charge, easy to implement, waiting to be taken advantage of.

    Most for-profit vendors have always been just that, For Profit. Most Open Source solutions and free-domain solutions set forth by not-for-profit organizations have been just that, Not For Profit. If something isn't for profit, and isn't for political gain, then odds are it is strictly being developed for the betterment of society. I guess the honest question now, when confronted with accepting the logically obvious decision, is "Why start now?", to which I say, "To make up for lost times."

    • Gee, where I come from an IT professional is anyone who works in IT.

      Are you really suuggesting that IT decisions be only made by people with no qualifications or experience in the field. That would seem to to rule you yourself out judging from your post.

      Perhaps we should similarly stop doctors from making medical decisions, or architects from designing buildings?

  • Scope creep? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ashtead ( 654610 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:24AM (#14236681) Journal

    So basically, from the featured article, an "amendment" to an economic bill can result in rather severe changes to how the various parts of the MA government can operate? Somehow this seems familiar, we've seen these things happen before in the EU and elsewhere in the US when certain big mono- and oligopolists wants something which is not quite within scope of the currently proposed legislation, something that would be more obviously suspect if proposed as a separate bill.

    Perhaps it is time for general ban "riders" and "amendments" that change the overall meaning of some proposed regulation, unless their consequences have been evaluated, or perhaps just an overall ban: if a bill is to be changed or augmented, it has to be cancelled and reintroduced from scratch. Something needs to be done about rampant law-making in general, this part of governments have been allowed to run riot and overwhelm the judicial processes. In MA as elsewhere.

    Of course, this would just be another law, adding to the mess...

    • Re:Scope creep? (Score:3, Interesting)

      Perhaps it is time for general ban "riders" and "amendments" that change the overall meaning of some proposed regulation

      You might want to support these people [downsizedc.org]. Put simply, they want to make Congress actually read every single bill out loud, in its entirety, and have those who vote on it sign an affidavit stating that they understand what they're voting for. This implies that any post-reading amendments would require another full reading before being voted on, which would stop any secret clauses being i

  • by cryogenix ( 811497 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @02:11AM (#14236810)
    Most companies, people who have called the IT department because they could not figure out how to turn on their computers will set IT policy or will mandate technology shifts because they got sold by someone that sounded good. Meanwhile, the IT people who actually know about the stuff are forced to impliment bad decisions knowing it will usually cost more and mean more work for them.

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...