
DARPA head resigns, moving on to industry - hhs
https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2019/12/17/darpa-head-resigns-moving-on-to-industry/
======
eob
To the folks reaching immediately for the “revolving door” observations:

DARPA is one instance where churn is a feature, not a bug. Or if not a
feature, at least an intentional design choice rather than an accident of
corruption.

Various rules about the way the USG works make it really challenging to
innovate in the way private industry can. DARPA isn’t perfect, but it’s a
pretty good effort to engineer an ecosystem within the USG that optimizes for
“wild idea pursuit” rather than “Spec’ed hourly labor” (which governs the rest
of the defense complex). Part of that ecosystem is regular rotation of
leadership to bring in fresh ideas and agendas. Another part of that ecosystem
is the acknowledgement that you have to spend money on 99 bad ideas before you
find the one nugget of gold. Basically, the same observation that governs VC
portfolio math but the DARPA is interested in capability unicorns rather than
economic unicorns.

When I worked in DC, the joke was that DARPA was the only agency in town that
would pull your funding for SUCCEEDING. The reason being that if you
succeeded, it obviously meant they had set their ambitions too low and needed
to re-frame the work to be impossible before funding it any further.

~~~
unlinked_dll
Revolving doors are a policy anti pattern when the proverbial door separates
industry from industry regulators. DARPA doesn’t fit that category.

------
uvesten
"The Dream Machine" by by M. Mitchell Waldrop
([https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/722412.The_Dream_Mach...](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/722412.The_Dream_Machine))
is a really good book about J.C.R Licklider, one of the perhaps lesser-known
individuals who helped create the modern computer revolution, in no small part
as an ARPA (later DARPA) director. By reading the book, I learned that the
changing of directors is by design, and an 8 year tenure looks like a problem
with finding a suitable candidate to fill the role. 2 years seems more in line
with how it was set up. I really recommend the book for anyone interested in
the history of computing, the internet, or DARPA.

------
dpflan
What does this mean for DARPA / the state of DARPA? I just searched and see
that Walker was head of DARPA for about 2 years, which seems like a short
time.

Previous heads' tenures:

1\. A. Prabhakar: ~5 years

2\. R. Dugan: ~3 years

3\. A. Tether: ~8 years

~~~
JonathonW
Walker had been acting director of DARPA since January 2017 (eventually
formally becoming director in November 2017), so, when his resignation takes
effect, he'll have been in the position for three years-- actually a few
months longer than Dugan.

Historically, Prabhakar and Tether's long tenures in the position are unusual
[1], with most directors staying anywhere from one to four years. This mirrors
how DARPA works at the lower levels: the revolving door for DARPA Program
Managers (and their programs) is very much real _and_ 100% intentional: DARPA
PMs are typically recruited from academia or industry, serve 3-5 year terms
and then return to work in academia or industry. This keeps fresh talent and
fresh ideas moving through the organization, and provides a sense of urgency
and time-sensitivity to their work (successful projects get transitioned
either commercially or into longer-term programs under other branches of the
military-- they don't languish forever within DARPA by design).

[1] [https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/DARPA_Directors_Sheet-
web....](https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/DARPA_Directors_Sheet-web.pdf)

~~~
cushychicken
Seems like a smart way to do business. (Or, research, as it were.)

Too many orgs end up resting on their laurels - either getting too focused on
research and not executing on technical advantages generated by that research,
or too focused on execution and not enough into research.

------
Ididntdothis
This seems pretty normal. I worked at a startup company founded by ex-DARPA
people and I got the impression that it’s standard procedure there to move in
and out of the agency and while in private business receiving funding from the
agency.

~~~
crocodiletears
This is a bit tangential to the topic at hand, but do you believe that their
previous experience at DARPA made the company's culture/workflow distinct from
other startups in any significant way?

~~~
Ididntdothis
They were very hands off. Probably the same way they operated as DARPA project
managers. It often felt that the CEO and CTO watched us from a distance. But
they were excellent at writing, presenting and talking to people.

------
Ericson2314
DARPA is pretty neat. Pitty it's part of the defense department and not
something shared between them all. Tech isn't just good for war and ads, ya
know.

Make it ARPA again in name and flesh!

~~~
xvilka
There are also ARPA-E[1] for Department of Energy and IARPA[2] for
Intelligence Community.

[1] [https://arpa-e.energy.gov/](https://arpa-e.energy.gov/)

[2] [https://www.iarpa.gov/](https://www.iarpa.gov/)

------
yellow_lead
> _Walker will move on to a position in industry, though a DARPA spokesman did
> not reveal where._

Any ideas as to where? Lockheed, Palantir, Google?

~~~
the-dude
How about Boeing

~~~
CalChris
With a PhD in Aerospace Engineering, that would make more sense.

------
taneq
> Walker will move on to a position in industry

It's really hard to read this and remain non-cynical. Were any big contracts
signed recently?

~~~
GlenTheMachine
There are SO MANY laws preventing this sort of thing. I take the training
occasionally; just the refresher takes half a day. The full training to be a
Contracting Officer’s Representative (a “COR”) takes a full week.

Suffice it to say: having Walker’s experience and contacts will secure him a
nice position, and rightly so. But if that position regards a government
action in which he had any role he would likely end up in prison, and the
contractor would be heavily fined and maybe barred from competing for
government business.

~~~
tomjakubowski
There may be laws but are they actually enforced?

~~~
frank2
US Federal laws are enforced vigourously enough that I think the burden of
proof is on those who claim they are not enforced.

Whether the laws are _effective_ at preventing the behavior they are designed
to prevent is another story.

~~~
OnlineGladiator
Why do you assume (or know) US federal laws are enforced vigorously? I see
almost no evidence of this, and an abundance of evidence to the contrary. As
another commenter pointed out - there is an entire book describing this
epidemic in detail.

~~~
pathseeker
>and an abundance of evidence to the contrary

Then please provide us with a little. It's interesting you're able to see
evidence of major federal offenses and no major news outlets or law
enforcement agencies have done anything about it. Sounds like quite the
conspiracy.

~~~
OnlineGladiator
I don't even need to bring up obscure cases or examples, just look to the
president. Do you honestly think he's going to be prosecuted (I realize he has
been impeached) for any of his offenses?

~~~
dhsudeuwu
So you don't need obscure examples but the first one you reach for is highly
political and applies to one of the most protected federal workers? No one
with any habit of studying us law is under the illusion that the POTUS is
bound by the same rules as other federal employees specifically because the
law itself has many exceptions for that specific role. If there's so many
examples then surely you can find another that isn't tied to the Trump
administration.

~~~
OnlineGladiator
I gave an example which you don't dispute and I referenced an entire book full
of specific examples - it seems unlikely I'm going to persuade you of anything
(the fact that you made an account just to reply to this comment doesn't make
me think you're going to stick around either) since the goalposts keep moving.

But sure - how about the Scientologists being given a pass for tax fraud,
extortion, and a litany of other illegal activities? Or is this another unfair
example, because Scientologists are also untouchable by regular laws? My
entire point is that the "untouchables" are the problem - there should be no
untouchable class of people _at all._ The fact that the elected leader of the
US is considered above the law is moronic. He should face higher scrutiny, not
less.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_status_of_Scientology_in_t...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_status_of_Scientology_in_the_United_States)

I'm done responding to comments in this thread.

------
segfaultbuserr
It's DARPA, not Darpa. It's the Hacker News submission title replacement code
again, it's not the first time that the acronyms in the titles has been
replaced improperly. To those who didn't know its existence...

1\. It properly capitalizes the title, making it more pleasant to read, and it
also automatically removes the ALL CAPS titles. But from time to time, it
makes the title worse by removing the proper acronyms.

2\. It removes buzzwords from the title, which is generally good for anti-
karma farming, but sometimes it does this even if such use is technically
appropriate. For example, "massively parallel" becomes "parallel".

Submitter, please change the title back manually. And moderators, please
update your code to recognize more acronyms, such as DARPA, CSAIL, etc.

~~~
the-dude
[https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/51924/proper-
cap...](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/51924/proper-
capitalization-of-commonly-used-acronyms)

