November 11, 2006
Anticipatory Web discussionà [home]
Anticipatory Web Challenge Problem à [link]
Community Centric Service Methodology Glass Bead Games
Lobbying Congress on the Merits of the National Project
Responses:
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Cox, Ph.D. [edited]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:13 AM
To: Paul S Prueitt
Subject: Re: your comments about Prueitt's request to lead an effort
PRM means Performance Reference Model, not Program Risk Management.
See http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/egov/documents/CRM.PDF
Briefly,
to get a project funded, the project manager *must* submit an Exhibit 300 form
that describes whose performance will be improved, and by exactly how much,
before funding is approved. Bad things ensue if the goals aren't met.
Brad,
I am trying to change the rules. My conjecture is, and I may be wrong, that an approach of the type I have defined below..
http://www.secondschool.net/beads/communityCentric/26.htm
would be accepted by the Speaker.
I am asserting that she would want to start up a funding effort (say at 40 - 50 K per month) within 60 days, at initial levels to test the MyBank system you have developed, but as a measurement over various properly specified "transaction spaces"
What I know you are continuing to focus on is some proper response to the system according to the current rules. This is where Steven, Rex, Cory, John and Roy are coming from also.
Is it proper to say that my proposal is being made
(1) to this group and then
(2) to the Speaker
This proposal is not going to deal with the current funding system !!!!!!!!!
My strong and repeated assertion is that the current funding system is a coherent mechanism whose structural design precludes any funding that would lead to certification that any technology is more optimal than what current systems (RDF, OWL, relational data bases, advertising systems, and media systems) has.
In other words, a principled argument is made that the funding mechanism of the federal government has been manipulated as a consequence of the recent history. It is further asserted that entire federal funding mechanism supporting all funding related to information technology has undercut the very intent of the government’s desire to have the information systems that modern governance requires.
Steven’s comments suggests that this is not true for some other countries in the world. Steven talks also about the mechanisms that might be now involved in the US government’s funding efforts.
I am making a clear and scholarly presentation that the current system cannot be used to provide the needed innovations in information technology.
I can be successful without your support, however IF you would please consider the proposition that a change in the rules is being well specified by me, and that your work is advanced in my proposals; the possibility may become more real.
Does this make sense?