Why did you decide to pick, as Maureen said, fast but fair federal firing?

There are two primary reasons that that was the first thing we picked to focus on.

One is because it's a really complicated, really thorny topic and there's a lot of politics attached to that and a lot of folks have to be very concerned about optics or existing relationships when they're talking about this.

We are aggressively nonpartisan and we also are new and so we have less skin in the game and are able to tackle that and put forward a straw man if nothing else, for the rest of the community to respond to.

I think our report actually is quite detailed and the ideas that we have are very strong and thoughtful.

It's still the first thing that we have seen so far that goes into detail that talks about how it works now.

And only we are in a position also to convene that group and talk about how things work now rather than at the abstract policy level.

So you could say your employee was not minimally acceptable.

Why did you decide to pick, as Maureen said, Fast but Fair Federal Firing?

There are two primary reasons that that was the first thing we picked to focus on.

One is because it's a really complicated, really thorny topic, and there's a lot of politics attached to that, and a lot of folks have to be very concerned about optics or existing relationships when they're talking about this.

We are aggressively nonpartisan, and we also are new, and so we have less skin in the game and are able to tackle that and put forward a straw man, if nothing else, for the rest of the community to respond to.

Although I think our report actually is quite detailed and, and the ideas that we have are very strong and, and thoughtful, it's still the first thing that we ha- or have seen so far that goes into detail that talks about how it works now.

Um, and only we are in a position also to convene that group and talk about how things work now rather than at the abstract policy level.

The other core reason is because of- All of the foundational changes to government that we identified in our first report and that we are focused on going forward, the root causes of culture issues and sort of c- constraints, uh, include making sure we have the right people in the jobs, and there are many parts of that.

When you think about this from a design problem, is it a protection? Are the protections the problem? Is it the rules? How do you think about clearing out all of the underbrush so you can really get to reform here?

Why did you decide to pick, as Maureen said, fast but fair federal firing?

There are two primary reasons that that was the first thing we picked to focus on.

One is because it's a really complicated, really thorny topic, and there's a lot of politics attached to that, and a lot of folks have to be very concerned about optics or existing relationships when they're talking about this.

We are aggressively nonpartisan, and we also are new, and so we have less skin in the game and are able to tackle that and put forward a straw man, if nothing else, for the rest of the community to respond to.

Although I think our report actually is quite detailed and, and the ideas that we have are very strong and, and thoughtful, it's still the first thing that we ha- are-- have seen so far that goes into detail that talks about how it works now.

Um, and only we are in a position also to convene that group and talk about how things work now rather than at the abstract policy level.

The other core reason is because all of the foundational changes to government that we identified in our first report and that we are focused on going forward, the root causes of culture issues and sort of constraints, uh, include making sure we have the right people in the jobs, and there are many parts of that.

When you think about this from a design problem, is it a protection? Are the protections the problem? Is it the rules? How do you think about clearing out all of the underbrush so you can really get to reform here?

So Maureen, you give a broad stroke of what you've done, but say more about why you think that what you're doing is different and why you think it's going to help.

There's so much to talk about there in the specific focus of measuring what matters and how we're going to achieve that differently than it has been done before.

It starts with defining what the bottom line is, defining what matters to people, what those real world outcomes look like.

And because of what Maureen just described as a sort of bottom up approach to metrics and output and activity measures that's happened so far.

We think the big shift is making that more of a top-down directive that comes from the people through their elected representatives to say, this is what we expect our government to deliver and at what level, and then making that the thing that is required to be measured.

And a key part of that is illuminating the gaps where data to measure those things don't currently exist today because a lot of them are very tricky to measure and require a combination of pieces of data that aren't being produced right now in any standardized way.

So our hope is to, our plan is to build a dashboard that shows what those real-world outcomes would be across at least the core CFO Act agencies of federal government, and then look at public data that's available right now across all the existing reporting structures and frameworks to identify of the data that exists, and we know government is drowning in data, the There's lots of numbers.

How are we, I say you, we, all of us, going to ensure that we create systems that are actually continually rethought, that are agile, and that are actually delivering?