Author Archives: dunster

Telecom Immunity, The Day After

I’ve repeatedly voiced my opposition to granting the telcos immunity for their violations of the law. It seems obvious to me that if you break the law, you should be held accountable in a court. It doesn’t matter who asked you to break the law. It matters whether you broke it or not.

That ship sailed. The House, Senate, and President all said yes last week, and the immunity was granted. There are a few lawsuits left to settle, and a couple loopholes in the law that might kick in, but it seems like a done deal. Time for a bit of a post mortem.

Downsize DC echoed my initial reaction. “The 2006 Election Fails” they wrote.

In 2006 the electorate punished the Republicans. Voters gave the Democrats majorities in the House and Senate. Polls showed several reasons for this. Voters objected to Republican spending, Republican corruption, Republican lawlessness, and a reckless Republican foreign policy.

Democrats were elected to change these Republican policies. Now, two years later, all the Republican’s Big Government policies remain in place. Indeed, the Democrats have actually expanded those policies.

Partisan electoral politics has failed us again.

The latest evidence of this failure came yesterday, when a large number of Democrats joined with Republicans to give President Bush expanded powers to spy on Americans without a warrant. They did this by passing the “FISA Amendments Act.”

The Democrat controlled Congress also sent a strong message of toleration for government sanctioned lawbreaking. They did this by immunizing the tele-communications companies that had collaborated with President Bush to illegally spy on American citizens.

It’s hard to argue with them. The Democrats promised a change in direction, got elected, proclaimed that a new sheriff was in town. . . . and then proceeded to cave in to the White House on virtually every wedge issue from the 2006 election. What’s the point in electing the opposition if they do the same thing as their predecessors?

I was furious and disgusted. I was looking for a list of every Senator and Representative who voted to support this bill. I wasn’t sure what I was going to do with the list. Write a nasty letter? Promise never to give them money? Take them off my Christmas card list? I was pissed.

Obviously, not everyone thinks the same way. Andrew Sullivan made me think about it in less incendiary language:

It’s clear to me that the president seized powers beyond his reach and, more importantly, retained those powers after the initial crisis; it’s clear too that the telecom companies should have known they were complying with illegality and refused after an initial period.

But it seems to me the focus of blame should be on the president and should be exercized primarily through political rather than legal means. And the trouble with prosecution is that it does become difficult to determine when exactly we stop forgiving illegal actions designed for the public safety in the immediate wake of a catastrophe like 9/11. I do forgive it in the wake, and see some lee-way for executive energy in moments of crisis or unknowing probably for a while thereafter (even though it horrifies me that the Bush administration would have merrily assigned all these powers to itself indefinitely if it could, and not even told anyone, let alone come promptly to the Congress asking for a reformed FISA law). But how do you prosecute a company on the basis of that kind of blurry line – granting immunity before but not after a point we deem appropriate or defensible?

My concerns are appeased now that the Congress has signed on in the light of day, that a court is there as a safeguard, retroactively if necessary, and that FISA is re-established as the exclusive mechanism for government wiretapping. I don’t consider this a capitulation to triangulation or Beltway insiderism or to Obama-worship. I consider it a middle ground between vital intelligence gathering – the non-coercive type – in an increasingly complex telecommunications system in a very dangerous war.

Obama has had his own role in the firestorm. He was one of the ones who voted to approve the law. That vote seemed pretty hard to reconcile with his previous votes on the issue. He wrote:

After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act. Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.

It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I voted in the Senate three times to remove this provision so that we could seek full accountability for past offenses. Unfortunately, these attempts were unsuccessful. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

I understand his point. He thinks that the FISA expansion was necessary. I don’t agree with him, but that’s one of those points where I think it’s easy for reasonable people to disagree. He doesn’t like the telecom immunity, and he fought it. He likes the FISA reform more than he hates the telecom immunity. Again, I disagree, but at least I get it.

I understand that there are times that you have to compromise. Heaven knows I do it; my Town Meeting notes are littered with votes where I voted for the best available choice because my actual preference wasn’t available. All in all, I’m not quite as pissed as I was last week. I’ve come around to understand how people opposed to telcom immunity voted for the bill.

Still, I’m sure: If it was me, I would have voted “no.”

I’m Not Going to Miss Lugo

I was at the game on Friday. The Red Sox lost.  I swear I’m the only one on the planet this year who has seen more Red Sox losses than wins in Fenway this year.

Late in the game, Lugo came up lame and staggered over first. I confess a little bit of me (ok, a lot of me) was hopeful: Is this the injury that will remove him from the scene? The answer turned out to be a resounding yes: 4-6 weeks on the disabled list.  I know I shouldn’t wish ill on him, and I don’t, really.  I just want him gone.  I hope he recovers quickly and well (on another team’s payroll, thanks).

Francona has stuck with several players through long, long slumps. Some of that loyalty has been rewarded when the player came around. I would have been a lot less patient. If you ask me, Lugo has exhausted his chances:

  • .268 batting average (following up last year’s .237)
  • 1 home run (!)
  • 22 RBIs
  • projected for fewest extra base hits of his career
  • .139 with runners in scoring position

Is there anyone you’d rather see less in a key situation? Don’t forget his atrocious fielding – tied for most errors in the AL – and you have someone I don’t want on the roster.

Addition by subtraction. Bring on Jed Lowrie.

Me and the Trophy

Shortly after I got back from Japan I got the flu; it was the sickest I’ve been in my adult memory. One of the casualties of that illness were the pictures – I never got around to organizing and posting them.

Check this one out. If I get enough feedback, maybe I’ll be inspired to put it all together. . .

the 2007 World Series Trophy (and me)

June’s Headline: New Job at HubSpot

Ronan and Atticus visiting in NewburyportOnly 3 posts last month – yikes. You’d think being unemployed, I’d have nothing to do but write, but it didn’t work that way at all. It was a very busy few weeks. I spent a few days helping Paul out in his apartment. I helped get my grandmother moved into an assisted living facility (with the daunting task of the house still looming). I caught up a bit on my unread book pile. I did some organizing around my house, including filing 6 years of Town Meeting paper. I dogsitted for a couple weeks, and visited Brian and Su in Newburyport.

Pierce and Garnett in the Bleacher Bar

I went to New York and visited Glen, the first time I’d seen him since Doug’s wedding. I similarly caught up with Amy (When Amy was here, we ended up doing shots with the just-championed Celtics under the bleachers at Fenway before they threw out the first pitch – a scene that cannot be described even with pictures).

When I left HP, I told people (and myself) that I wanted a leisurely June, and then start a job search. But back in May, even before I left HP, I got an email from Brian Halligan at HubSpot. I went in and visited him and his co-founder, Dharmesh Shah. We had a very interesting discussion. I liked both of them, liked the way they asked and answered questions, and liked their business idea. We followed up in email, and I came in to meet a second set of people. It continued to feel like a really good fit and they agreed.

Still, I was conflicted. I’d been aiming for something really risky, like starting a company or finding a really early-stage company that I could help grow. HubSpot was more established – 30ish people, two rounds of funding, hundreds of customers (!), etc. It wasn’t as small/early as I had been thinking of. The role they were trying to fill was right in my wheelhouse – improving the customer experience through analytics, UI improvements, feature selection, and QA. And the people were good. And the idea was good. And they had traction in the market. You can see the appeal.

I talked it over with friends and former co-workers, from founders to followers. Ironically, Dharmesh was providing his own argument for me to pass on the job: “Be an entrepreneur, not a wannabepreneur,” he wrote. I talked to Jason Butler as he’s starting up at Serendeputy. I had a couple dozen great conversations on the decision – it’s great to have friends and colleagues to help you sort out your own thinking (thanks, everyone). In the end, it felt silly to pass up a prospect like this just because it didn’t fit “the plan.” I couldn’t go wrong with a good team of people working on a good idea.

So I started on Monday – I’ve had four days of work so far. My days have consisted of meeting with person after person while they dumped as much information on me as they could in the hour or two that was allotted. I’m putting it all together in my head as quickly as I can before it leaks out. The business has more complexity than I had expected, both in strategy and in technology. There are a lot of moving parts. I’ve identified many places where I can help. The trickier part will be to figure out which ones are the right ones to tackle.

When I went to bed on Tuesday night (after day 2), I realized that I was looking forward to going to work in the morning. It was a great feeling.

HubSpot is in Kendall Square. Here is the view from my desk, and from the window:view from my deskthe Charles, MIT, etc. from my office window

The Weather Around Here

I like extreme weather. I prefer a blizzard to a thunderstorm, but in June you take what you can get. Check out the last two days.

Less than 20 minute shower! More than the drains could handle.
See my Tabblo

The clouds were clear, as was the radar. There was a storm coming.

When it came, it came hard – lots of hail.

It took about 10 minutes before the street was overflowing into the softball field like yesterday.
See my Tabblo

Update: as noted by Universal Hub, you don’t usually see stuff like this in Cambridge.

I Quit

Last month I gave notice at Hewlett-Packard, and yesterday was my last day.

I left on good terms. I continued to enjoy working with the Tabblo team through the last day. I’ve never been a part of a group that can just make things, and make them with something close to ease. Websites, products, and experiences: We’d start with nothing, and a few weeks later we’d have it all done. It felt powerful. It was fun. The timelines we worked on, the things we created – I’m proud of it. I’m sure I’ll work with some of them again in the future.

So if the team was so great, then why leave? Oh, let me count the whys. The commute was a problem, both in duration and destination. There were, of course, the big-company frustrations, too. Why is the IT group so uninterested in helping us meet our goals? Do I really need a building-wide memo to remind me not to park my car in the motorcycle spaces? Why couldn’t Finance figure out a way for us to ship our books out of the United States? Are Razor scooters really that much of a health hazard that you’ll threaten to fire me for zipping down to the production room?

The biggest problem, though, has its roots back in acquisition itself. Shortly after we were acquired the Senior VP who sponsored the acquisition left HP. He was immediately followed by his VP. That left us without the backing to execute on HP’s business plan. That plan could be mildly described as ambitious, and without a strong backer it was totally doomed. In the 13 months since then we had 6 new executive leaders with more than two strategy shifts each. The lack of stability is demoralizing. At some point you decide that it’s time to find something new.

So, what’s next? I think a leisurely June sounds very good. Today, for instance, I biked 17 miles, read a book, did some cleaning, and wrote this blog post. Dinner tonight is with friends at Scutra, celebrating my unemployment and their honeymoon. Sounds nice, doesn’t it?

I’m also starting a job search. If you’re founding a startup, or are in a startup, and are looking for someone with a great track record and fantastic recommendations, please drop me a line. I’m looking for product management or business intelligence. I wouldn’t rule out a return to more customer-facing areas, or maybe a return to QA. The only requirement is that I’m staying in the Boston area.

A post-script: Dave St. Germain posted some pictures he’s taken of me over the last couple years. He’s such a good photographer.

Town Meeting Session #9 – Last Session

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I scribble notes. I’m sure that, at times, I mishear or misunderstand the speaker, but my notes represent what I hear at the time. I then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notepad for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

The Finance Committee meeting ran late, and I didn’t get down to the Town Meeting floor until 8:22. I know they sang the anthem, because I could hear that! Any other announcements were lost. I got there in time to hear the start of Article 2.

Article 2 – Reports, continued.

  • Clarissa Rowe gave the report of the cemetery space study committee.
  • Mary Fallon gave the report of the Committee on Disability. She read the whole written report, which drives me crazy. She even said she was going to “read it into the minutes.” It just doesn’t have to work that way! The written report is there for us to read. The presentation can just give highlights. It’s much faster that way.

Article 16 – Subdivision Control. [8:33] Board of Selectmen Chair Clarissa Rowe explained that this wasn’t full subdivision control – it was a narrower set of rules. It only applies to subdivisions of 2-5 units when there isn’t enough road frontage to divide “by right.” She said it was for protecting neighbors from flooding and other problems resulting from development that used to be thought impossible, like on ledge. She said it was approved unanimously by the Board of Selectmen and by 3-1 by the Redevelopment Board. Attorney Wickersham spoke to the rules briefly. There were several questions about the workload for the redevelopment board, the waivers that might be granted, and how long the board should have to act. Clarissa Rowe tried to respond to many of these questions, and many statements that weren’t questions at all. She was just jumping up to the microphone and talking when she had something to say. The moderator wasn’t asking her to answer a question; she was just weighing in. It was inappropriate. She should wait her turn to talk, just like everyone else. Jim Doherty proposed an amendment to give Town Meeting jurisdiction over the underlying regulations. The Historic District Commission was OK with the plan. Selectman Annie LaCourt described several situations where the Board of Selectmen had been powerless to act under the current rules. [9:00] ARB Member Chris Loretti said that he liked the concept, but had voted against the text because it was flawed. He proposed three amendments. The first would extend the deadline for the ARB to act from 60 to 90 days. The second would be to limit the “grandfather” rights of developers who propose plans, then have the rules change. The third was to change the effective date of the legislation. Diane Mahon spoke in favor. She was nervous about handing the power to the ARB, and said that the Selectmen could take it back in the future if that seemed wise. Speakers against said that it was too complex, not well thought out, and thought there should be a committee study. Tommy Caccavaro suggested it was “crafty” that the DPW Director and Building Inspector weren’t present. His suggestion of inappropriate action on the selectmen’s part were unwelcome to me. I don’t understand why he feels the need to accuse people of malicious activity. Speakers in favor said it was a well-scoped plan that addressed a real problem. The question was moved [10:01]. All four amendments failed by voice vote, and the selectmen’s motion carried 132-14.

Article 47 – Pension Obligation Bonds. Treasurer Stephen Gilligan moved the language Finance Committee had just approved. Alan Jones provided the FinCom perspective. There were a couple speakers who think the whole PoB idea is a bad, risky idea and said to vote no. A couple speakers were in favor, focusing on the fact that this is only to permit special legislation, and deferring an actual decision on PoBs to the future. A motion to terminate debate failed. Adam Auster asked if this was a bylaw. After some confusion, it was determined that the conditions attached to the vote were not binding unless it was a bylaw.

Allan Tosti moved to table Article 47 [10:38]. This move saved the day, as far as finishing the meeting went. We moved on to the remaining articles while the bylaw was sorted out.

Article 30 – Margaret Spengler. Selectman Rowe gave a resolution to create a committee. Passed.

Article 46 – OPEB consultant. Allan Tosti explained this is to study ways to manage this obligation. Passed.

Article 50 – Collective Bargaining. Allan Tosti presented the new appropriations with the recent negotiations. Passed unanimously.

Article 51 – Future Collective Bargaining. Passed unanimously.

Article 67 – Local Option Taxes. No action.

Article 47, again. Stephen Gilligan made an amendment to make the restrictions into a bylaw. There was discussion of the safeguards included in the proposal. The amendments all passed. The treasurer’s text was approved, 113-14.

Allan Tosti announced vacancies on the Finance Committee in precincts 6, 17, 19, and 21. Town Counsel John Maher got a standing ovation on his retirement. Moderator John Leone got an ovation for his first year’s performance.

Town Meeting was dissolved.

Finance Committee Before Meeting #9

We met at 7:30 before Town Meeting, as usual. We had business tonight. First up was the Deputy Town Manager Nancy Galkowski, who provided updated recommendations for collective bargaining. The town had reached agreements with all but the police unions. Approved unanimously.

Dick Fanning took over to chair the meeting. The minutes of 5/12, 5/19, and 5/21 were approved. The Treasurer presented his preferred version of the the PoBs (pension obligation bonds) legislation. The FinCom version required PoBs to be approved by 2/3 at Town Meeting, the treasurer, the Board of Selectman, and FinCom. It also limited the amount to 20% of the total fund. The treasurer wanted to remove the 20% restriction and the FinCom approval. After discussion the treasurer agreed to re-insert the FinCom approval. The 20% cap is likely moot because by 2009, in current market conditions, the remaining liability will not be much larger than 20%.

There was discussion about the risks of PoBs and the effects of the legislation. It was noted that the proposed vote is only to create enabling legislation. There is no money spent, no commitment made, no risk taken on. It’s just to keep options open. The treasurer’s language was approved.

A Few Random Bits

Today’s theme: things I ran across while surfing away my holiday.

Ned points to the 55th best crossword puzzle solver in the world. His blow-by-blow analysis of the 5/25 NYTimes puzzle that is . . . . breathtaking in its detail. I can’t imagine spending that much time on a crossword puzzle, let along writing about it afterwards. I enjoy my glass house, though, and won’t throw any stones.

Andrew Sullivan has been on a kick about “Hallelujah” for some reason. I’ve been on a kick about this song since Jeff Buckley’s album Grace grabbed me in 1994, and refused to let me go. I didn’t know it was a Leonard Cohen cover until a year later when I played the album for a friend. He was younger than me, but Canadian, and immediately recognized the song. I listened to Cohen’s version, and to other Cohen songs, but I’m convinced the magic here is Buckley’s, not Cohen. Cohen was a necessary ingredient, of course, but Buckley is what moved the song so far beyond the ordinary. Anyway, Sullivan points to this deep history and analysis of the song. I found it fascinating.

So if I visited so many sites today (Firefox tells me it’s more than 100 so far), why point out these two? They both have incredibly rich detail and analysis. But I only find one of them interesting. Sure, the crossword post was a good scan – I’m glad to know that stuff like that is out there. But the “clap clap” post was devoured in its entirety. Different strokes, and all that.

To lighten things up a little, a much more bite-sized link sent by my friend Doug (fresh back from Hawaii – see the family photoalbums here). Doug points me to jacksonpollock.org. All you need is your mouse and the spacebar. What do you think – should I quit my day job?

dan\'s pollock effort