Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts and women in technology

  I was recently attending my son's Cub Scout pack meeting. It was near Halloween, and this meant the children, and some of the adults, had an extra opportunity to wear costumes, which most took advantage of. (I had my traditional "oops - it's almost Halloween?" costume on.) There were the usual suspects and -- based on a very unscientific sample of 50 Cub Scouts in southern Maine -- the economy hasn't affected Halloween costume sales this year.

One boy stood out from the rest of the Batmen, ninjas and Star Wars characters. He dressed as a Girl Scout, complete with wig, headband and makeup (I give him high marks on concept and execution). The thing that caught my eye, however, was everyone else's reaction to him and his costume. While most people responded to the costumed persons in their immediate vicinity, everyone made a beeline to the Girl Scout, and most made some sort of smart-alecky comment, which almost always included the term "sweetheart." When this boy had to get up to accept an award the room reacted as one, with a combination of gasp/laughter/shriek. He couldn't have gotten more of a reaction if he had been dressed as a member of the Taliban with a sign espousing universal health care for all gay illegal immigrants.

I wonder if a similar event could've taken place at the local Girl Scouts' Halloween meeting. If one of the girls had dressed up as a Cub Scout, would she have received the same response?

Maybe, but she might have gotten as big a response if she had dressed up as an information technology worker or, better yet, an IT manager.

FCW recently ran a story covering a book about women in the technology field, highlighting the women in the federal IT community. This was accompanied by an editor's column mentioning the book and the editor's own experiences in the federal IT world. As he puts it, "To be frank, that’s [women in positions of power] not what one expects to encounter in the modern tech world." Lest this be taken out of context, the column went on to consider how government was ahead of the private sector in terms of women in IT and leadership positions, and the factors behind this difference. But, to paraphrase an old saying, isn't progress truly made when people are in positions they were never in before and nobody notices?

There are many reports and studies on how and why there are fewer girls in school math and science classes, and how this translates to the workplace: fewer women in technology jobs and leadership positions. There are numerous reports on the salary differences between men and women. (For fun, Google "pay differences between men and women." Pick one of the entries that has a comments section. I think many of the comments were written by people in attendance at my Cub Scout Halloween event.) And there are numerous anecdotal accounts of female employees having more difficult experiences with promotions.

And a roomful of adults still hoots when they see a 10-year-old Milton Berle. Does the FCW editor quoted above still want to refer to this as the "modern" world?

Note: I came up with two cartoons for this issue. I drew the first one with the idea of illustrating the double standard for women in IT -- having a tougher path -- but, in getting feedback, it seemed that it was too subtle. (That's cartoon speak for "nobody got it except me.") The second one worked a little better.

Posted on Nov 12, 2009 at 10:39 AM0 comments

Klossner: Why the federal government is like the Red Sox

I have lived in New England for more than 25 years now. Given another 50 I might be considered a local, but probably not. Since my children were born here, they have a better shot at being referred to as "natives" by the natives, or at least my children's great-grandchildren — if they decide to stay in the region — will be. In the meantime, there are several ways to "pass" as a New Englander:

• During the 30-day summer, eat ice cream at least 150 times.
• Wear shorts until the temperature falls below 30 degrees (bonus points if, like my neighbor, you wear shorts year-round).
• Say "that's the thing about New England — if you don't like the weather, wait 15 minutes" every time a storm rolls by.
• Wear L.L. Bean duck boots to a formal event.
• Stack firewood in your dining room.

Of course, an essential element to passing as a native New Englander is to be a Boston Red Sox fan. This was an easy transition for me. I enjoy sports and I didn't grow up with a "hometown" team, so following the Red Sox didn't require my ditching another organization. I have followed the Sox during my entire time in the region, and I think I can even hold my own in a discussion about whether Bill Buckner deserves the vitriol that has been thrown his way (he doesn't). But I can't tell you whether Mel Parnell should have pitched in 1948.

Then there are the Yankees. I don't think I'm breaking any news by saying that being a Red Sox fan is based on not liking (OK, despising; OK, loathing with every fiber of my being) the New York Yankees as much as it is rooting for the Boston Red Sox. The Yankees are everything the Red Sox are not — basically, successful. They have won many more championships (until this decade, the Red Sox were better known for their lack of championships and a long list of creative, heartbreaking losses through the years), made much more money, and been held up as the standard-bearer for athletic success. (If any of my fellow Sox fans read this, my membership in Red Sox nation will be revoked.) Of course, the Yankees are also perceived as personifying the bad money side of athletics: With an operating budget that dwarfs the majority of other major league teams, they have resorted to buying the best players available. (Now will you let me back in?)

One could think of the Yankees as the private sector, and the Red Sox as the federal government. And, similar to the Yankees-Red Sox relationship (now there's a euphemism), each of the organizations derives a certain amount of satisfaction from pointing out the foibles of the other.

For example, I discovered this article on “The Worst Jobs of the 21st Century” when it ran two years ago and have kept it in my files for some time, waiting for the appropriate moment to use it. (Note that other occupations in the "worst jobs of the 21st century" list include farmers, computer programmers, economists and travel agents. According to Forbes magazine in 2007, trying to write code to figure out the travel budgets for your chain of international ranches wasn't a lucrative career move.) This would be the equivalent of the Yankees running articles on the "worst baseball teams to play for," wouldn't it?

As the saying goes, times have changed.

Government jobs have become attractive again. Recent economic events have made government jobs — with their promise of decent pay, benefits and the position still being around six months later — more attractive than private-sector positions which, um, don't promise much of anything. This is in marked contrast to years before when the private sector, with obvious edges in all the money categories, was much more appealing to job-seekers.

A recent story in FCW reported that spokespeople in the private sector were concerned about losing talent to government agencies, and accusing the agencies of being "more aggressive" in their recruiting. A quick read of the comments section can give you an idea of how much government folk are enjoying the irony. For years, talent has flowed to the private sector. At the same time, the private sector has had no qualms about recruiting from the government employee ranks. The moment this is reversed, the private sector cries "foul."

Have agencies done anything illicit? Not that I've seen reported anywhere. Maybe they've marketed themselves a bit more aggressively, although how aggressive is it to point out that "there are still jobs with benefits here?" And the private sector certainly can't complain about aggressive recruiting, can it? Are these spokespeople really complaining about government "poaching," or are they complaining that they don't have enough to counter government offers? These seem to be the slings and arrows of competition, as both sides want to find the best talent.

This is comparable to the joy Red Sox fans have found this century, finally having found some success. I'd go into detail, but this has been covered in minutiae elsewhere, and I want to be sensitive to the Nationals and Orioles fans reading this. Even though I'm trying to pass as a New Englander, I don't want to pass as an obnoxious Red Sox fan.

Having said all this, the baseball world seems to be righted on its axis again. The Yankees have bought their way back to prominence and stand favored to win the World Series this year. The Red Sox suffered another historic collapse to add to their storied past. So don't give up hope, private sector.

(In a related note, notice that Forbes put "print journalism" on their list. There's nothing like reading your own obituary.)

Posted on Oct 28, 2009 at 1:01 PM0 comments

Klossner: The link between IT dashboards and '80s hair bands

My 12 year-old daughter has access to several computers in our home. Each computer has iTunes. Her father's iTunes folder currently stores 5.3 days worth of music, in case he finds himself in a situation in which he is stranded and unable to do anything but listen to his iTunes collection for 5.3 days. My daughter also has access to a stereo, along with a couple hundred music CDs stored on bookshelves, under chairs and between couch pillows. If she were to brave the trek to our attic, she would find a couple hundred LP albums in boxes. My daughter has an iPod of her own, although I don't know how many days of music she has on it. When my daughter was 2 years old, she wanted to hear Ella Fitzgerald's greatest hits over and over. Despite hearing "A Tisket A Tasket" in my head all day, I was thrilled that my daughter and I would share musical tastes. I couldn't wait until we attended our first Beatles tribute-band performance together.

And now she is walking around this same home singing Journey songs at the top of her lungs.

At the risk of insulting the armies of Journey fans now working for the federal government, Journey -- for those of you who were not around at the time or who have had memories erased by the trauma -- was one of the most popular “big hair bands” in the 1980s. I would have to say they are best known for anthemic-synthesizer and guitar-oriented songs that filled the arenas and stadiums where they appeared. In the controlled radio formats of the time, you couldn't go more than an hour or two without hearing a Journey song.

Journey is seeing a renaissance with the renewed interest in 80’s pop music in general and the opportunities for new media to be used in reviewing the original material. For example, Journey has become very popular on YouTube as a source for video spoofs of their original music videos, with one remake even winning a film festival award. Their songs are also being covered by other musical acts, which is where my daughter discovered the song she now sings at the top of her lungs several times a day.

This is what the evolution of technology has brought us. We can find music in many different formats, aurally and visually. We can store it on a wide variety of hardware. We can take it with us, making it accessible everywhere in our worlds.

But it's still a Journey song.

This brings me to IT dashboards. Dashboards are a technology that takes data and gives graphic presentations of the data and its performance. For example, a chart or graph can be created representing a program's schedule -- if the program is on schedule, it stays green, if it slips or falls behind schedule, it turns yellow or red, depending upon how much it is falling behind. It is a fairly straightforward concept, and has been around for some time, and it is finding renewed popularity with the new administration.

There are problems, however, and they have nothing to do with the technology. They are almost all data-related. Too much data, not enough data, data that takes too long to interpret, or the wrong data in general are all potential dashboard problems. Think of it as having a 64G iPod touch with in-ear headphones and 5.3 days with nothing to do. And all you have on it is a single Journey song.

Welcome to my world.

Posted on Oct 06, 2009 at 2:02 PM0 comments

Klossner: Could Obama unilaterally vote contestants off “American Idol”?

Recent reactions to a proposed Senate bill on cybersecuity have left some fearful of whether President Obama (and future presidents) are being given too much power. To get a flavor of that, check out the reaction to FCW’s original Web story (be sure to click “View all comments").

In looking through the fine print for humor purposes, I was able to discover additional administrative powers. It turns out the president will also be able to:

* Pick Facebook friends without them being able to refuse him.
* Vote contestants off of American Idol.
* Declare call-waiting part of the axis of evil.
* Turn off the presidential spell check.
* Designate the entire Stevie Wonder catalogue on iTunes the "free song of the day."
* Use more than 140 characters in his tweets.
* Stop the sale of all cereals with chocolate/peanut butter combinations.
* Drive through EZ Pass toll booth lanes without slowing down.
* Declare every basket he makes to be three-pointers.
* Get the all-time high score on Wii Golf.

Posted on Sep 30, 2009 at 8:07 AM1 comments

Klossner: How to recognize the mentors in your life

It's Rising Star time, the 1105 Government Information Group’s annual recognition of people who will someday be our bosses. This year's class (being honored Oct. 22 at the GCN Gala) was asked about their mentors -- people who helped them along the way. Since these are Rising Stars, I expect them to do the right thing: Name someone who can be the most useful to them in the future or someone who can help them move up in the agency, or make a profitable connection.

I used to have a basketball coach who was a throwback from an old movie, especially in his ability to spout sport cliches. One of his sayings was, "It takes two people to throw a pass; one to throw and one to catch." I would alter this for the purposes of mentoring: It takes two people to mentor; one to mentor, and one to be mentored. (Picture me spitting into the ground after saying this. Hopefully, I'm outside.) While I respect the Rising Stars' ability to recognize and thank someone for helping them, I find it as equally impressive when a talented person recognizes their need to learn and so listens to someone's experience. (I remember -- and cringe at the memory of -- the ego of my 20s.)

Personally, I would like the off-the-record version of the Rising Star discussions. This would cover the people who were helpful to us in ways that aren't so clearly recognizable. Besides, one person can't be an all-purpose mentor. There are many things we learn along the way, and many people who have influenced us in the process. Some of my favorite mentoring experiences are the unintentional ones -- the person I encounter every day in non-work environments that may teach me something without either of us having intended it. I hope that I have been the mentor in such a situation -- you never know that until after the fact.

(As a parent I run into unintentional mentors all over the place, people who set examples on how to deal with parenting situations or give me appropriate language for speaking with children of all ages.)

There are so many skills that won't be acknowledged in the Rising Star coverage. (Some of my listings feel like lightning strikes -- a one time event that may have changed your life, as opposed to mentoring that took place over a longer period of time.) That said, here's my list of questions that can help identify the unacknowledged mentors in our lives.

* Who told you about that "easy" course in college that you took because you needed to fill a space on your schedule but which has now become your career?
* Who gave us the proper -- okay, exact -- wording to put on our federal job application?
* Who showed us that we could lead useful, productive lives without first logging onto Facebook?
* Who told us the best lunch special near work?
* Who told us which of the office elevators was the faster one?
* Who told us that Cobol wasn't a race from another planet in Star Trek?
* Who told us about that obscure British sitcom, The IT Crowd?
* Who told us where to find cheap -- oops, inexpensive -- work clothing?
* Who taught us how to make guacamole? And how to eat it?
* Who took us to our first Jackie Chan movie?
* Who gave us Orioles or Nationals tickets while assuring us that professional baseball would return to the region someday?

Posted on Sep 25, 2009 at 10:18 AM0 comments

Klossner: The secret of success in federal IT cartooning

This has been a good year to do cartoons for Federal Computer Week.

In the 13-plus years I have been drawing cartoons for this publication, I have often needed a high learning curve on cartoon topics. I don't have to tell you, but FCW covers subject matter that is a) of interest to a specialized community, and b) often ahead of the mainstream curve. (For example, I noted that FCW's encounter with the birthers occurred several weeks before the mainstream media's.)

When creating humor, or making editorial comments, this is a challenge. It helps in these situations to have the readers, listeners, viewers, etc. know as much as possible about the subject matter that you are commenting on. Think of a bunch of people sitting in a room, commenting on someone in the room's clothing. Comments and jokes can cover more specifics — "Do you dress in the dark to conserve energy, Dave?" — because everyone knows the reference points. But when someone makes a reference to an outfit that same person wore last month, members of the community who weren't there are lost.

As I said, this has been a good year, topic-wise. Many of the issues of importance to the federal IT world have also been prominent in the public eye issues — including Web 2.0, virtual training, stimulus spending and tracking, cybersecurity, e-mail, contractor relations. These issues and their specifics are familiar to a larger audience, allowing me to comment on a wider variety of specifics, hopefully making for sharper commentary or humor. (I can't make a joke about "tweeting" to someone who is hearing about Twitter for the first time. Come to think about it, it isn't that easy to make a joke about 'tweeting" even if someone knows what I'm talking about.)

I point all this out in light of the recent cartoon on a topic I had no familiarity with: the National Health Initiative Network. While aware of its existence, I wasn't aware of the specifics of their role, or any recent controversies. I had to revert back to older techniques: a) ask the editors a lot of questions; b) talk to the reporter covering this story; c) go to the FCW blogs and columns; or d) Google it.

It turned out this story was pretty new, and hadn't been widely reported yet, eliminating options c) and d). The editor was helpful in explaining the story to me, noting in particular that there are concerns about NHIN's technical architecture. Not all agree with these claims. There is debate about whether they should fix the flaws or should they proceed, slowing down the progress of the program.

In discussing this, the editor used a term that helped me immensely: Would going ahead with the network as it is be "paving the cow paths?" Although I hate to give away trade secrets, this is often all a cartoonist needs to go on — a strong visual image. In this case, however, it was a complicated image, and I don't have the rendering skills necessary to convey a cow path being re-paved in a 6-inch box.

So what other images did I consider? From my sketchbook, I offer the following ideas.

PROS: Easily understood, "flop, flop" looks funny. CONS: Car imagery is a cartoon cliché.

PROS: Unique image, funny implications. CONS: Doesn't convey the issue clearly or accurately.

PROS: Funny image if understood. CONS: Not so easily understood. Horse imagery is almost as big a cliché as cars.

The image I went with, below, isn't necessarily much better than the ones I rejected. But I felt it was unique — in looking at it again, I think it might be necessary to have the label "architecture" in there. Or at least a "flop, flop."

Posted on Sep 16, 2009 at 7:55 AM0 comments

From Social media to the Pony Express: A guide to the collaboration toolbox

I love the variety of communication technologies at our fingertips. I especially like that they offer me many different ways of not speaking directly with the person I want to contact. My professional existence involves a wide variety of relationships where I have rarely spoken or met with my employers or co-workers. (For all they know, I may be an alias, or several people working together. The quality of my drawings and writing discourages that line of thinking, however.) If "electronic hermit" isn't in use already, I wish to coin the phrase.

I might not be the person to talk with about the future of e-mail, though. Having once lived in a world where, in order to communicate with someone, I had to either find a telephone connected to a wall or the ground, or write on a piece of paper, put this into another folded and sealed piece of paper, apply a 20-something-plus cents sticker to the corner and put it in an outdoor box to be picked up, or physically locate the party I wished to speak with and have a face-to-face conversation -- having lived in that world, it still seems new to me to be able to sit down at a keyboard or cell phone and communicate with another party any time of day. Problems with this technology? You must be kidding.

We've reached a point where it's not enough to be able to communicate with anyone, anytime. We now have to be able to speak with EVERYONE, anytime. Mind you, I'm not complaining about this. The problems with e-mail, which mostly centers around security, response time and data storage issues, have made it an inefficient technology for collaborative communications, especially in the workplace. Sending out group e-mails has become the equivalent of throwing a fistful of post-it notes into the wind. Web 2.0 presents more efficient technologies for office communications.

(We've also reached a point where our technologies suffer from generation gaps. Can you imagine the point in time where we will think the Web 2.0 technologies are "old school?" "Dad, you still Tweet? You are SO embarrassing." As of now, anyone who is still impressed by e-mail is considered outdated by the tweeters of the world. How soon until we hear the phrase, "Never trust anyone who Lotus Notes?" This may already be the case; I discover these things later than most.)

But here's the catch - studies show that e-mail isn't actually dying. Active corporate and consumer e-mail accounts are predicted to grow in the next few years. The reality is that e-mail is just becoming another tool in the box.

So the question isn't "Is e-mail dying?" More to the point, it's "Which technology is right for me?" I offer the following directory to help consider which technology best fits your particular communication need.

Telephone
Pro: Can reach party directly.
Con: Can reach party directly.

E-mail
Pro: Can send a communication at any time of day.
Con: Communication can be denied by server for any number of reasons at any time of day.

Brick through window
Pro: Can make a direct, dramatic statement to a specific party.
Con: Might get caught.

Twitter
Pro: Can send a brief message to a group of contacts / followers.
Con: Numbers of contacts/followers might diminish after receiving "just got out of shower can't decide what to wear" tweet.

Bicycle messenger
Pro: Immediate delivery of packages.
Con: immediate receipt of sweaty package.

Comments section
Pro: Allows immediate response to specific article.
Con: Immediacy can come at expense of rational thoughts.

YouTube
Pro: Can develop a full media package, with sound and visuals, to tell your message.
Con: Need to create a production company in order to produce 5 minute story that gets 136 hits.

Instant messaging
Pro: A written phone call.
Con: Index finger can be larger than some cell phone keyboards.

Pony express
Pro: Traditional delivery method which is good for the environment.
Con: Not sure if the Washington D.C.-Omaha route is still in operation.

Postal Service
Pro: The joy of producing a physical message that will be unique to the sender and recipient.
Con: The 17 people who still do this may be too busy to immediately write back.

Facebook
Pro: Can send mass message to group of contacts or friends.
Con: Might forget to hide the photos of last week's party that are still on your wall.

Blog
Pro: Can write thoughts and philosophies on a variety of subjects.
Con: This is monologue, not communication.

Posted on Aug 25, 2009 at 11:58 AM0 comments

Klossner: “We’ve suffered an employee separation of the lower cubicle”

“Employee separation.” I came across this Orwellian term while reading the FCW story on recommended security steps to take when an employee leaves. The term jarred me, as it reeked of consultant jargon. I understand that it refers to any situation where an employee leaves the workplace, but I can't help but feel that it covers the employers' concerns rather than the employees'.

It sounds like a medical term -- "We've suffered an employee's separation of the lower cubicle." Doesn't employee separation also refer to what happens at the end of every working day? Is it a dance step? Do managers address a soon-to-be-let-go employee and tell them "we have to separate you?"

I guess what really catches my ear is that this sounds like a term that would only be used by an employer. No one comes home and tells their loved ones "I got separated today." Have you received any invitations to a "separation party" or "separation luncheon?"

Maybe this is oversensitivity on my part. I imagine it was intended to cover any situation where an employee leaves -- moving on to another job, retirement, going back to school, escaping to the private sector -- including situations where the employee makes the choice to "separate." Recent economic events don't make one think of this verb is from both sides of the desk, do they?

The technical term for the process immediately following employee separation is "de-provision." In reading the description of these steps, one gets the impression of a swat team descending upon the separated employee's cubicle and putting up crime scene tape. I also have an image of everyone acting relaxed and in control, when you know they want to rush to the "separated" employee's cubicle and make sure all the paper clips are still there.

Should management/consultants have need for other terms to cover the situation, I offer the following:

* They'll (employees) be stepping back to take a look at the big picture.
* They're going for the long coffee break.
* They're being given an opportunity to do research in job futures.
* They're on our bottomless sabbatical program.

And employees -- or separated employees -- might want a few terms of their own:

* Employee laceration.
* Doing the security guard tango.
* Returning to the home office.
* Forgetting the security code for good.
* Cutting back on office expenses.
* Joining the ranks of the newly self-unemployed.

Please feel free to submit any terms of your own. I'll gladly use this space in the future to share submissions.

Cartoon note: The cartoon I created for this subject didn't work so well. In looking at the finished piece, I don't think the intended image -- a person being spun around in "pin the tail on the donkey" style -- is one that can be easily rendered. Showing motion -- impending or happening -- is tricky in a static cartoon. The cartoonist has to make sure that it is easily recognized, which I don't think is the case here.

Posted on Aug 18, 2009 at 1:39 PM0 comments

Web 3.Oh No!

We are on the verge of the next Web development. For those of you who lost track, we have had Web 1.0, which was the development of browsers to help us store and find data. For those of you who have shut off all media (in which case I imagine you wouldn't be reading this, so why should I acknowledge you?) we are in the midst of Web 2.0, the development of social networks, allowing us to find each other. We now are about to enter Web 3.0, or the semantic Web. Web 3.0 applications hope to – through better description of the data and linkage of previous apps – make existing data easier to locate and analyze.

Think of it as social networks for data. (I guess the data are lonely now that the humans spend all our time on social networks.)

For those of you, like me, who need a way to keep these things straight, I offer the following handy, wallet-sized program.

WEB 1.0 (browsers) – Users find data
WEB 2.0 (social networks) – Users find each other
WEB 3.0 (semantic Web) – Data find each other

Of course, a lifetime of science-fiction reading and viewing leads me to fear we can look forward to the following developments:

WEB 4.0 – Data create their own Facebook page, restrict friends.
WEB 5.0 – Data decide they can work without humans, create their own language.
WEB 6.0 –Human users realize that they no longer can find data unless invited by data.
WEB 7.0 – Data get cheaper cell phone rates.
WEB 8.0 – Data horde all the good YouTube videos, leaving human users with access to bad '80's music videos only.
WEB 9.0 – Data create and maintain own blogs, are more popular than human blogs.
WEB 10.0 – All episodes of Battlestar Gallactica will now be shown from the Cylons' point of view.

Posted on Aug 03, 2009 at 9:50 AM0 comments

Talking ourselves to death

As part of my research for editorial cartoons, I like to read feedback forums. Getting opinions from nonprofessional voices often gives me an interesting point or unique take on a subject. Also, many letters are short and make quick, singular points – this translates well to cartoons.

In the print world this used to mean perusing the letters-to-the-editor sections of newspapers and magazines. These sections now seem quaint with their three to four entries on a topic that, by the time you read the letter, is at least several days old and often written by a professional in that particular topic who is essentially writing a responding op-ed piece. No, if you want the gut reactions in this world, you head to the online "comments" sections.

When they first appeared on the electronic scene, the comments sections were a rich source for information and ideas. There were fewer filters for a reader to get through with their thoughts, and electronic space allowed for more entries. But there has been a slow devolution in the comments sections. I can look through hundreds and hundreds of entries without finding any point other than a partisan brain spasm. In the words of Stuart McLean, the host of the CBC radio show Vinyl Cafe puts it, "That's the wonderful thing about e-mail; you can write without thinking." Or, as one of my friends put it, "even the people I agree with sound stupid."

I blame the Web 2.0 world. So many outlets have been created via social networks, wikis, etc. that all of the folks capable of making well-reasoned insights have their own blogs or sites, leaving them unavailable, or uninterested, in participating in comments sections. To paraphrase Andy Warhol, in the future, everyone will have a blog. That future is here, and the comments sections of the world are left in the hands of the two dozen people who haven't been able to wrangle a blog gig yet.

In the traditional, physical social gathering places – the diners, the gyms, the barber shops, the sports bars, the coffee shops, the salons, the book clubs, et. al., – discussions often included knee jerk, quick statements that didn't involve a lot of thought. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - people need a place to express their emotions, and we can't all be think tank eloquent. The beauty of the physical space discussions, though, was that in order to participate in them you had to have something either worthwhile to say or entertaining to listen to. A couple "leaders" often emerged in these forums and steered the discussion by making the majority of comments or by discouraging those comments that weren't enlightening or entertaining. Online forums don't allow for these editors to do their thing, resulting in knee-jerk comment after knee-jerk comment, with accompanying responses, to proliferate. It makes one think that a NYAAH NYAAH! button on the keyboard isn't too far off.

My small Maine town created a Web site/chat room featuring local news and events. In the first several months of the site's existence, the discussion quickly devolved into a series of name calling and partisan accusations, with only a handful of people involved. The moderator of the site instituted one rule – all comments had to have a name with them, no more anonymous or alias postings. Since that change, the comments section has thrived and the volume of postings hasn't decreased. I don't know if this would work on a stage larger than the 7,500 population of my community, but it is worth noting.

Was the Open Government Dialogue a success? It depends on the definition of success, doesn't it? I imagine the creators of the OGD assumed there would be a learning curve, so they must have been anticipating some reactions and alterations being necessary. I have to admit being impressed by the effort – there must be so many people with expertise in these areas that issuing an open invitation to the world at large probably wasn't enthusiastically greeted in all corners. (How'd you like to be the lucky intern whose job it is to read all the OGD entries? You'd be re-thinking your decision not to join the Peace Corps.) I would also think they probably expected that there would be at a point where they would have to eliminate a high percentage of the suggestions. Would the Open Government Dialogue be considered a success if, after months of process, they only found one useful suggestion?

Posted on Jul 24, 2009 at 1:47 PM0 comments

Klossner: 'Camp Don't'

Recently I accompanied my 7-year-old son to Cub Scout camp. The parents all looked at each other when, during the orientation, the Scouts were told that one of the first rules in this camp in the middle of the Maine woods was "don't run." Later that day my son and his friend were admonished for climbing on a rock. If I were to tell you how each child was leashed to a beach chair and had to be accompanied by three adults in order to enter the six-inch deep swimming area, it would be an exaggeration. But not by much.

My fellow parents and I ended up referring to the place as "Camp Don't." The kids still had fun -- they are 7-10 year-olds, after all -- but those of us who had grown up during the wildly unregulated camping years of our youth felt that something had changed. We even tried to instill some subversiveness in our sons: We would all start running when no one was looking. (I wonder if we're raising a generation that will never know stitches, leaving them open to all kinds of ridicule when their children and grandchildren re-discover the medical need to re-attach your skin after a laceration. I envision a world where these subsequent offspring will also have, in a generational revolt, learned the joy of running in the woods, socializing with friends without it being scheduled, and playing a team sport without several hundred adults/coaches in attendance. But I digress.)

I understand the Boy Scouts' need to protect themselves, liability-wise. They are covered within their fenced-in boundaries, and a Scout camp, with its waterfront, exposed rocks and roots, and BB gun and archery ranges, offers many excellent injury opportunities. But are these regulations really for the children’s sake? Or more for the organization's?

I'm reminded of the Chinese proverb, 'Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him how to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.' In this case it would be, 'Tell a child not to run and you keep him safe in your sight; teach him when to run, and you keep him safe out of sight.' Or perhaps, 'Tell a child not to run and you keep him safe in camp; teach him to run and he can go to the store for you.' How about: 'Tell a child not to run and you keep him from falling down; teach him how to put on a band-aid and he can run anywhere he wants.'

This brings to mind the DOD's recent creation of a Cyber Command unit. Cyberspace now joins land, sea and air as a defensible domain. DOD is concerned with threats posed to military networks. The magnitude of those threats is best captured by three numbers bandied about by DOD leaders in the recent past: 15,000 networks and 7 million computers to protect, with 50,000 attacks occurring every day.

This sounds simple in principle -- observe and protect the cyberspace of military networks. But the cyber world, unlike the fenced-in Boy Scout camp in Maine, doesn't have such clearly defined borders. As stated in the above article, "NSA and DOD officials have said that although the new command would assume responsibility for defending the .mil domain, NSA would continue offering its expertise and assistance to defend the .gov and .com domains." This sounds like slippery slope material to me. Where does their jurisdiction end and begin? And, if regulations are passed, are they applicable in all domains? If there's no running allowed in .mil, can you run in .gov and .com?

One concern is that the DOD (and NSA) implement "don't run" regulations -- not designed to keep users and networks safe as much as shield those overlooking security from blame.

Better run.

Posted on Jul 20, 2009 at 8:25 AM0 comments

Klossner: Is "smart mob" an oxymoron?

" I believe that there is a historic opportunity to enhance public participation, but if we lose the public audience by deploying applications that do not achieve results and that recreate smart mob behavior, simply on the Web, then the public trust will be lost and we will be back at a new starting point. The public cynicism will be reinforced, not lessened."
- Kim Patrick Kobza, president and CEO of Neighborhood America

"That's the wonderful thing about e-mail; you can write without thinking."
- Stuart McLean, host of the Vinyl Cafe

Since I last checked in on the Open Government Dialogue, the Web site has been hijacked by some single-issue groups — in particular a group that, inspired by radio talk show hosts, are claiming that President Obama is not a legitimate U.S. citizen and are clamoring for him to produce a birth certificate proving that he is. I went back to view some of their missives. I can accurately describe my jaw as being on the ground. I guess one of the byproducts of a bad economy is that folks have more time to write Web site entries and comments.

This leaves me in a professional quandary. The sheer volume of entries and comments shows that there is a large contingent (or a small, very active contingent) of birth certificate theorists. If I were to engage these viewers — by, say, making a negative reference to their genetics and / or intelligence — it would bring more viewers to FCW.com, making it more valuable to advertisers. This would make me more valuable to FCW. So you can understand the urge to insult the birth-certificate crowd and create a downward spiral of communication.

But I hold out hope that there is a better way. I can appeal to the greater humanity of these contributors and find the good in their efforts. I can, for example:

* Look for the positive. There were very few spelling mistakes in the birthers' entries.

* Find the common ground. President Obama and the birthers both share an interest in constitutional law.

* Offer them choices. Would the birthers like to obsess over a made up problem like the birth certificate or contribute to a real problem like how to have civil discourse on Web sites?

* Find more positives. It's impressive how the Open Government Dialogue site designers made it so easily accessible.

* Mirror their behavior. What are the birthers trying to hide?

* Try the therapy angle. How does parroting radio talk show hosts' words make you feel?

* Find more positives. It's not easy to get so many people to write the exact same message. This shows excellent organizational skills.

* Look for commercial opportunities. If we charged these groups per entry, we could make a dent in the federal deficit.

* Look at the big picture. It's heartwarming that so many citizens have banded together to urge the president to be better organized with his personal records.

And by the way, I've been having trouble locating my birth certificate lately, if anyone wants to start a request to see it.

Posted on Jul 08, 2009 at 3:12 PM5 comments

Klossner: Those guys are wearing underwear on the outside ...

While doing research for a cartoon and blog entry on open source software, I made a couple discoveries:

* Current discussions on Web 2.0 systems -- specifically social networks and cloud computing -- focus on the security questions that arise with new technologies. Many of these comments border on paranoia: After reading the comments sections of several articles, in fact, I worry that by posting this blog entry my bank account will be emptied tomorrow.

* As I read archived open source articles, I found that current fears over Web 2.0 technology echoed the fears expressed earlier about open source. Specifically, the security questions. But, as I read more recent entries on open source software, the worries subsided, and now there are numerous successful cases of agencies using open source software.

I call this the superhero phenomenon. Let's face it, the first time a guy showed up wearing long underwear with briefs on the outside (not to mention a cape and mask), folks weren't too ready to accept this as "help." People probably grumbled about how somebody that dressed this way couldn't possibly be secure, that a cape would be of no use in cold weather, and that those booties didn't look very safe (what if the car he was lifting dropped on his foot?).

But after watching this underwear-clad person lift a car, prevent a building from collapsing or win a reality show, people started to trust the underwear-on-the-outside guy. A couple influential voices might have even had their businesses saved by the superhero, allowing them to spread the word and winning the public over to the masked guy's side.

_______

Entries / questions from comments sections when the first superhero appeared

* A recent battle between a superhero and a mutant space alien caused tremendous damage to the downtown infrastructure, resulting in increased taxes. Should we expect this from all future "rescues?"

* The entry into our community of superheroes will attract evil geniuses intent on battling these caped freaks. Are we prepared to suffer the threat this presents to our security?

* If this person uses x-ray vision, won't that contribute to climate change?

* Our local superhero hasn't provided us with a birth certificate. Should we allow him to save us from the mad scientist who lives on the next street?

* How soon until these "heroes" will start presenting us with invoices for services rendered? Or go to the other side for a better offer?

_______

I'm not saying open source is a superhero; it's more like a team (the Fantastic Four, say). I'm just pointing out that open-source software is going through the same process in gaining public acceptance as superheroes did (and Web 2.0 technologies probably will). But this takes time, allowing for maturity of the technologies and public acclimation.

I imagine that social networks and cloud computing -- not to mention whatever technology is released next week that will make communications easier but have security concerns at the start -- will, by a combination of users becoming more comfortable with them and the providers fixing any glitches, be acceptable in the next few years. In the meantime, we need a superhero who can defend us from the comments sections.

Posted on Jun 30, 2009 at 12:51 PM0 comments

Klossner: 18 wonderfully goofy ideas from the Open Government Dialogue

But in the good old, innocent days, the Open Government Dialogue site provided a wide variety of suggestions for improving our government. Here are some that caught my eye (Note: I apologize for missing any newer entries. This being the Internet, things change quickly, and my recording of one moment on a Web site will almost certainly eliminate later worthy candidates):

TELL THE TRUTH — That's it. tell the truth. But I think we should send this person a copy of the movie Rashomon first.

RELEASE EXTRATERRESTRIALS DATA — Disclose all secret information on extraterrestrials, including their birth certificates.

ANGER — A call for the administration to resign. I didn't look closely — was this submitted by Rush or Glen?

MAKING SUBMISSIONS SIMPLE — Submit ideas in 500 words or less. Or, as it will be called, "the Twitter Grande rule."

SOCIAL MEDIA MADE EXCLUSIVE — Government use of social media should focus more on small groups of smart people arguing with each other. I believe this idea has already been implemented. They call it the Kennedy School.

BAR CODE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT STOCK — Bar code (and inventory) every object owned by the federal government. The bar code can be smartly fitted into Henry Waxman's mustache.

SIMULATED GOVERNMENT TRAINING — Create a government simulator for legislators. Or make all their Sim City scores public.

IT'S ALL ABOUT ME — This person would like to know what the government knows about him or her. Based on a reading of this proposal, I know that this person failed high school English.

TEACH MARRIAGE COUNSELING SKILLS TO GOVERNMENT — This person, a marriage councilor, would like people to speak in non-absolutist terms. But what if one political party wants to see a Merchant Ivory film and the other wants to see a Judd Apatow flick?

CREATE A GOVERNMENT CABLE CHANNEL — Create a government cable channel devoted to delivering news and information about the government. I believe this idea has already been implemented. They call it the Kennedy School.

GETTING CREDIT FOR IDEAS — People who provide good ideas get recognition. I found this one a little self-referential. If you provided the good idea of giving recognition to the other good ideas, should you get bigger recognition?

ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENT INTRANET — Create a Government-wide Intranet. The proposal states that this Intranet will "facilitate vital information sharing and collaboration across the entire U.S. federal government." But federal employees will still have to use the regular Internet to access YouTube.

LEGALIZING POT / BACKING OFF OF THE DRUG WAR — Calls for legalizing or re-classifying marijuana and cannabis. Before the Obama birth certificate issue came up, this may have been the most popular proposal. Maybe these folks and the birthers should get together and form a marketing firm.

ELIMINATE ELECTORAL COLLEGE — No unintended humor here, but I found the debate in the comments section to be rational, respectful and informative. Unfortunately, like the Electoral College, I worry that these qualities might also be arcane.

REDUCE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT — Wait: By reducing the effectiveness of the federal government, we'd be increasing the effectiveness of the federal government? But then we wouldn't be reducing the effectiveness of the federal government ... wait ...

And my top 3:

No. 1: CUT DOWN ON NUMBER OF PENS USED IN BILL SIGNINGS — I need a little more information here: Should we have two presidential pens? Should there be a decoy pen in case of theft? Should there be a specific Secret Service position for carrying refills?

No. 2: WINDMILL IN IOWA — Build a giant windmill in Iowa, for tourism and alternative energy purposes. Not a bad idea, but then they'd have to build something for each state, and I worry that the giant clown in New York State would scare my children.

No. 1: FREE PIZZA ON FRIDAYS — I'm kind of surprised that this didn't get a more positive response, scoring a miserable -42. Who could possibly be against free pizza?

Posted on Jun 17, 2009 at 10:48 AM0 comments

Government contractors vs. federal employees: How to tell the difference

I am new to the grudge match between federal employees and federal contractors. Like lions and hyenas, Yankees fans and Red Sox fans, the French and everybody, there seems to be a natural conflict here. While reading the comments section of a recent FCW Insider piece on this issue, I wondered if there was some sort of list or primer to help us identify the combatants -- er, co-workers.

Posted on Jun 10, 2009 at 5:43 PM1 comments