Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

18F launches cloud.gov

18f.gsa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: 18F launches cloud.gov

#41

Post by dragonwriter »

pc86 wrote: post #35
Zach_the_Lizard wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who worked in the Federal sphere, nothing's changed at all. The same procurement rules and regulations remain in place with all the issues they cause. 18F is a nice experiment, and they do have some wins, but they are just a drop in the bucket. The whole procurement and management process is so broken that it's a wonder any project gets completed. The same few bad actors keep winning contracts over and ove…

I'm inclined to agree, but I have two questions regarding that: 1. Aren't government positions notoriously underpaid compared to their private-sector counterparts? 2. Doesn't that mean that "government software" would end up being written by below-average developers and be significantly worse than private-sector software? Not that #2 isn't possible/likely/a fact under the current system depending on who you speak to.

> 1. Aren't government positions notoriously underpaid compared to their private-sector counterparts?

Yes.

> 2. Doesn't that mean that "government software" would end up being written by below-average developers and be significantly worse than private-sector software?

Assuming that that is the case, the fact that government positions are notoriously underpaid compared to private-sector counterparts would also imply a significant skill deficit in those overseeing and managing government contracts for outsourced work compared to the people employed by the private contractors to exploit the contracting system for maximum profit.

So, if we assume that public sector pay deficits mean, on average, public sector skill deficits, then so long as you don't address the pay deficits, you're stuck with either :

(1) Government software being substandard quality because its made by people with substandard skill working in government, or

(2) Government software being substandard quality because of substandard controls and quality assessment being exercised in the process of contracting out the work to private firms seeking to profit from government contracting process.

Re: 18F launches cloud.gov

#42

Post by pimlottc »

michaelmior wrote: post #26
chipgap98 wrote: post #12

That gif is really stressing me out for some reason

It took me a couple viewings to decide if this was a successful launch or if something went wrong.

It is maddening trend, how a few seconds of video is often clipped out of a larger video and inserted, on infinite loop, in another document with no direct reference or explanation.

Re: 18F launches cloud.gov

#43

Post by Zach_the_Lizard »

pc86 wrote: post #35
Zach_the_Lizard wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who worked in the Federal sphere, nothing's changed at all. The same procurement rules and regulations remain in place with all the issues they cause. 18F is a nice experiment, and they do have some wins, but they are just a drop in the bucket. The whole procurement and management process is so broken that it's a wonder any project gets completed. The same few bad actors keep winning contracts over and ove…

I'm inclined to agree, but I have two questions regarding that: 1. Aren't government positions notoriously underpaid compared to their private-sector counterparts? 2. Doesn't that mean that "government software" would end up being written by below-average developers and be significantly worse than private-sector software? Not that #2 isn't possible/likely/a fact under the current system depending on who you speak to.

> 1. Aren't government positions notoriously underpaid compared to their private-sector counterparts?

Direct Federal hires could be underpaid compared to the private sector, yes. The government uses the General Schedule (GS) scale, which tops out at ~$160K after adjusting for cost of living (there's a base salary and a CoL adjustment). There are rules over who can go in what grade and what step which would likely preclude most SE folks from being compensated appropriately. Those with PhDs and masters degrees would find it easier to get into the appropriate pay band.

Contractors can make good money, and, accounting for not having the middlemen, the Feds should be capable of paying higher salaries for technical fields and still save money. If we're already magically reforming the government by bringing stuff in house (taking an act of Congress in many places; lots of agencies have caps on the number of employees, forcing contractor usage), then we should be able to also reform the pay scale.

>2. Doesn't that mean that "government software" would end up being written by below-average developers and be significantly worse than private-sector software?

Sadly, that's exactly what's in place now. The developers in general are already worse than in the private sector. It's not because of money, it's because of incentives. The Feds aren't good at killing bad projects or disciplining companies they hire.

What you'll see on your typical Booz Allen, Leidos, SAIC, Lockheed, etc. team is a lot of highly educated and experienced people--the government highly incentivizes both education and experience in bidding processes--that are useless. The process beats them down. It's not that they're dumb; they're usually not.

It's difficult to get through the government processes, especially when getting into cleared work. The hiring processes tend to highly favor previous government work, so you end up with the same pool of people. You can't easily hire new people, so you stick with what you've got.

Re: 18F launches cloud.gov

#44

Post by spazmaster »

pc86 wrote: post #35
Zach_the_Lizard wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who worked in the Federal sphere, nothing's changed at all. The same procurement rules and regulations remain in place with all the issues they cause. 18F is a nice experiment, and they do have some wins, but they are just a drop in the bucket. The whole procurement and management process is so broken that it's a wonder any project gets completed. The same few bad actors keep winning contracts over and ove…

I'm inclined to agree, but I have two questions regarding that: 1. Aren't government positions notoriously underpaid compared to their private-sector counterparts? 2. Doesn't that mean that "government software" would end up being written by below-average developers and be significantly worse than private-sector software? Not that #2 isn't possible/likely/a fact under the current system depending on who you speak to.

Actually, in my experience the private-sector developers doing government contracts are well paid but are sub par skill wise. The software you work with, the slow procedures and the negativity surrounding failing projects ensure only the mediocre stay, which in turn results in longer and more failing projects. The good developers leave for startups etc.

Re: 18F launches cloud.gov

#45

Post by amorphid »

timdorr wrote: post #38
sswezey wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the difference between the USDS and 18F, it seems like a blurred line.

The USDS is part of the White House. They are directly under the President. 18F is basically a contracting agency, run by and for the government. They basically take on work that's assigned to them by the USDS. The USDS does work as well, but typically more with a leadership and policy role.

As I understand it, 18F started off as part of USDS. But the Obama administration wanted the program to outlive his tenure as POTUS, so they tucked 18F into the GSA.

Re: 18F launches cloud.gov

#46

Post by andrefrancisco »

timdorr wrote: post #38
sswezey wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the difference between the USDS and 18F, it seems like a blurred line.

The USDS is part of the White House. They are directly under the President. 18F is basically a contracting agency, run by and for the government. They basically take on work that's assigned to them by the USDS. The USDS does work as well, but typically more with a leadership and policy role.

Quick clarification. 18F is not assigned work by USDS. Federal agencies come to 18F with proposed projects and then 18F chooses which ones it works on based on staffing/scope/impact etc.

I'm an 18F employee.

Re: 18F launches cloud.gov

#47

Post by frabcus »

parasubvert wrote: post #39

Interesting to see Cloud Foundry take off this year after many years of being more of a curiosity on its own island. I personally didn't get it until I saw Docker a couple of years ago and wondered "how will we operate all of these apps, services or even the servers they run on without playing yet another shell game and resorting back to traditional shit IT?". And that brought me back to Cloud Foundry and BOSH, to th…

How are you finding Cloud Foundry? Is it good?

I've looked quickly at it, but unlike (say) Heroku, found it hard to know where to start to host a simple app.

Re: 18F launches cloud.gov

#48

Post by alaithea »

amorphid wrote: post #45
timdorr wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USDS is part of the White House. They are directly under the President. 18F is basically a contracting agency, run by and for the government. They basically take on work that's assigned to them by the USDS. The USDS does work as well, but typically more with a leadership and policy role.

As I understand it, 18F started off as part of USDS. But the Obama administration wanted the program to outlive his tenure as POTUS, so they tucked 18F into the GSA.

That's not correct. 18F predates USDS by about a year, and we are (and always have been) independent of each other, though there is a lot of cross-pollination in our work.

Re: 18F launches cloud.gov

#49

Post by zaksoup »

parasubvert wrote: post #39

Interesting to see Cloud Foundry take off this year after many years of being more of a curiosity on its own island. I personally didn't get it until I saw Docker a couple of years ago and wondered "how will we operate all of these apps, services or even the servers they run on without playing yet another shell game and resorting back to traditional shit IT?". And that brought me back to Cloud Foundry and BOSH, to th…

This is a huge validation of everything we've been saying and working on at Pivotal. In order to be successful at running software at scale you need your operations to get out of your way as a developer, and you need tools and architecture that make being an operator painless.

That's the goal with CF and Bosh, and it's clear that it pays off.

Re: 18F launches cloud.gov

#50

Post by Splines »

> The magic happens when an infrastructure team encapsulates their expertise, and then exposes that expertise as a service which can be used directly by developers.

I like this statement - how do you deal with educating team members on areas that require deep expertise? (e.g.., security, accessibility, localization).

Do you offer training, brown-bags, educational videos, or do you say "don't worry about it - if you do this in $x way, magic[1] will take care of you".

[1] Magic being defined as the compiler, automated tests, etc., feeding into a central feedback system (bugs, tickets, email, or whatever you use) telling you what you did wrong, and hopefully how to fix it.

Post reply on HN