[inmygarage]

I saw Mikey Dickerson (in the video) speak to a group of ~200 people last summer about the work that he and his team did on healthcare.gov. He was at Google for nearly 8 years and left to run the recovery team for healthcare.gov. Their team is the real deal -- they saved the site in just a few months and now over 6 million people have signed up. Read the Time Magazine story for the full account.

He does not seem like the type of guy that willingly puts up with government b.s. He gets it, and after seeing him speak I believe in him.

When their talk was finished they got a ~5 minute standing ovation and even a few stray tears.

I know it's cheesy but the government simply needs to catch up and I think they are finally ready to try.

I applaud the effort and hope to help out in some way.

[epberry]

I agree. I wonder if they're willing to take people straight out of college. I'd be interested in doing a short "tour of duty".

[samjking]

One of the people on the original healthcare.gov team with Mikey was right out of college, and I was only at Google for a year before I joined a team working to fix healthcare.gov (not USDS, but same ecosystem, and we spend a lot of time with the USDS folks).

[mattste]

If I have the chance to work with talented industry veterans, I'd absolutely love to do a tour of duty after I graduate.

[domoarevil]

This not a jaunt to Korea or Vietnam, holy moly.

[jarsin]

Ill take the Viet Cong over a government code base any day :)

[Roritharr]

No, but its arguably more important. Less risky, but as a good developer the opportunity cost might be high aswell.

[chucksmash]

I believe parent was balking at the appropriation of "tour of duty" to describe taking a government job for a couple of years.

The phrase carries strong connotations for a certain subset of people and it would be pretty tone deaf of us as a community to repurpose it to mean "writing instructions for computers the government owns."

[scarmig]

Unpopular opinion that needs to be said: plenty of people spend their military "tour of duty" writing instructions for computers. Even more are glorified paper pushers or janitors. Only a small subset actually ever see their lives at risk--being a fisherman is more dangerous. The main substantive difference is that in theory you can't quit on a whim.

We need to stop promoting an idea of martial valor over all other forms of work, and stop coddling those who demand that everyone grant their line of work more respect than everyone else.

[staticvar]

> The phrase carries strong connotations for a certain subset of people and it would be pretty tone deaf of us as a community to repurpose it to mean "writing instructions for computers the government owns."

It's definitely an appropriation but I'm not sure this appropriation means "writing instructions for computers the government owns." I think they are implying there is a kind of sacrifice taking place, perhaps putting your country before your own personal gain. Translated literally it might mean something like "writing instructions for computers the government owns for meager compensation when you could be making +$100k per year working in the wider tech industry." Some similarities here with the Peace Corp whom does use the language "tour of duty" to describe time served in the Peace Corp http://www.peacecorps.gov/media/forpress/news/453/

[wtbob]

Ummm, those who fought in Korea are responsible for the fact that 51 million people enjoy a respectable GDP and living conditions; those who fought in Vietnam were trying to attempt to prevent a brutal takeover which led to hundreds of thousands fleeing for their lives.

I'd say that's inarguably more important then rolling out prettier government web sites.

[alexose]

Any chance the talk was recorded? I'd love to hear what happened during those few months...

[iamartnez]

Here's a related talk, good stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLQyj-kBRdo

[aidos]

Thanks for posting that, very worthwhile (and entertaining) watch (though maybe a little too honest for the other people involved!).

For those who have worked in both types of environment (those that promote making things better vs those that punish you for doing something wrong) it's all too familiar.

After having spent a little too long in one of the more negative environments I made the mistake of attributing blame after a slightly disastrous event (while working at a much healthier company). My boss, rightly, told me that any blame was totally unacceptable in their culture. That's a lesson I've taken with me and I'll never forget. A culture of punishing honest mistakes will get you nowhere.

[debacle]

The Internet is enabling a government of the people for the first time since our population exploded in the last century.

Things are bad right now, but they're getting better. As long as the Internet remains an open and free place, society as a whole will continue to progress and grow at a faster and faster pace.

[ripb]

>The Internet is enabling a government of the people for the first time since our population exploded in the last century.

Is that you, Obama? What is this nonsense?

>Things are bad right now, but they're getting better.

Things - socially, politically and economically - are continuing to get worse for the average person.

What world are you living on?

[Shog9]

You're both trading slogans and saying nothing. What "things" are bad / improving / getting worse? Access to shelter? Food? Medicine? Where?

Even anecdotes are better than this nonsense. Here's one for you: even the poorest people I know, those without regular shelter, have access to communication services that would've been prohibitively expensive a generation ago, allowing them to find assistance when "things" - lack of food and shelter, for instance - get really bad.

[jasonjei]

> What world are you living on?

Before asking OP what world OP is living on, perhaps you should ask that of yourself before trolling others. This isn't reddit or Slashdot.

I would beg to differ that things getting worse. I would much rather live in a world where the Internet exists and information flows relatively freely than 50 years ago where information was controlled by a few world leaders. Living and work conditions sucked 100 years ago for many people. Things, on the whole, have gotten better.

[zak_mc_kracken]

Literacy and education have never been as high as they are today.

Poverty and sickness rates have never been as low as they are today.

Sure, there's a lot of room for improvement but it's undeniable that over the past century, humanity as a whole has been getting a lot better year after year.

[dang]

> What is this nonsense?

> What world are you living on?

This breaks the HN guidelines twice: it's uncivil and unsubstantive. You could make it a much better comment by taking the substantive sentence ("Things...") and following up with some concrete reasons.

[debacle]

> Is that you, Obama?

Don't be so shrill.

> Things - socially, politically and economically - are continuing to get worse for the average person.

Things are actually improving socially and politically. Scandals are being brought to light and quashed to a point where even untouchable edifices of the US hegemony are feeling the heat. Anti-vaxxers are on the outs. Climate deniers are on the outs. We're seeing the error in imprisoning millions of men because of racism. Factories in China are under scrutiny and almost every nation has an eye on ecology and our impact on the world. Birth rates are slowing, people are calling for more liberal policies across the world.

Economically, the middle class is finally being addressed. Basic income is on the table. There's an understanding that social safety and education are incredibly important.

But there is a lot of entrenched bullshit. And old money is nervous and reactionary. It's going to take a long time, but I believe very strongly that if we have the Internet of today for the next ten to twenty years, the entire world is going to look far more progressive than it ever could have without the Internet.