Advisory Committees 101

Ed Lazowska Bill & Melinda Gates Chair in Computer Science & Engineering University of Washington

Chair, Computing Community Consortium

LiSPI April 2013 http://lazowska.cs.washington.edu/LiSPI.pdf

Experience

NRC study committees Evolving the High Performance Computing and

Communications Initiative to Support the Nation's Information Infrastructure – 1994-95

Looking Over the Fence at Networks: A Neighbor's View of Networking Research – 2000-01

Improving Learning with Information Technology – 2001-02 Information Technology for Counterterrorism: Immediate

Actions and Future Possibilities – 2001-02 Assessing the Impacts of Changes in the Information

Technology R&D Ecosystem: Retaining Leadership in an Increasingly Global Environment – 2006-08

Managing University Intellectual Property in the Public Interest – 2008-10

Agency advisory committees NSF CISE Advisory Committee – 1995-2000 (chair 1998-99) DARPA ISAT – 1998-2006 (chair 2004-06) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy Advisory Committee, 2010-2012 NASA Advisory Council, Information Technology

Infrastructure Committee, 2012-present

Broad advisory committees NRC Computer Science & Telecommunications Board – 1996-

2002 President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee –

2003-05 (co-chair with Marc Benioff) Working Group of the President’s Council of Advisors on

Science and Technology (PCAST) to review the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program, 2010 (co-chair with David E. Shaw)

NRC committees

2012

Question: What the hell does this have to do with “Committee to Study

High Performance Computing and Communications: Status of a Major Initiative”?

Answer:

With the right leadership and air cover, you have the latitude to answer the question you wish they had asked (in addition to – not instead of – the question they did ask)

Discussion How I wound up on the committee Note the huge experience range of the participants Fred and Ivan as co-chairs The stages

Get informed Reach rough consensus Some small number of people step up to do the heavy lifting Negotiate the final product

It all has to be there, but only the Executive Summary and the Recommendations really matter

Committee leadership and committee staff really matter Follow-through is crucial to impact

Lessons It all has to be there, but only the Executive Summary and

the Recommendations really matter Cf. Cryptography's Role in Securing the Information Society,

720 pages! • “The conduct of the debate regarding national cryptography policy

has been complicated because a number of participants have often invoked classified information that cannot be made public. However, the cleared members of the National Research Council’s Committee to Study National Cryptography Policy (13 of the 16 committee members) concluded that the debate over national cryptography policy can be carried out in a reasonable manner on an unclassified basis. Classified material is often important to operational matters in specific cases, but it is neither essential to the big picture of why cryptography policy is the way it is nor required for the general outline of how technology will and policy should evolve in the future.”

Committee leadership and committee staff really matter Follow-through is crucial to impact These things can have huge impact and long lives If the topic matters to you, then you have to set aside the

time to do a lot of work – you need to be one of the small number of people step up to do the heavy lifting

Agency advisory committees

My experience NSF CISE Advisory Committee DARPA ISAT U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy Advisory Committee NASA Advisory Council, Information Technology

Infrastructure Committee, 2012-present Role and influence vary dramatically with the agency

and with the current leadership of the agency

Broad advisory committees: PITAC under President G.W. Bush

You play the hand you’re dealt A somewhat unusual committee composition A clear directive that overall investment would not increase

Lessons Don’t chair a committee if you can’t influence the choice of

members It’s tough to know how far to compromise

Cf. cybersecurity report

Broad advisory committees: PCAST NITRD Working Group

Chronology May 2010: Co-Chairs identified, scope established June 2010: Working Group formed, formal work begins July 2010: First public meeting August 2010: Second public meeting September 2010: Draft report complete October 2010: Report presented to PITAC November 2010: Revised report complete; presented to

PCAST Co-Chairs; presented to and adopted by PCAST; key Findings and Recommendations presented to the President

December 2010: Final report presented to the public (Aneesh Chopra, Vivek Kundra, Phil Weiser, Tom Kalil, Ed Lazowska, David Shaw, Rob Atkinson, Tom Leighton)

Subsequent year: Followup

Discussion The nature of PCAST Tom Kalil’s request Formulation of general direction Composition of Working Group Dynamics of interactions with PCAST Evolution of consensus on report directions and content Roles of Susan Graham, Mary Maxon Valuable relationships with Tom Kalil, Aneesh Chopra, Eric

Lander, many PCAST members Followup

Lessons Spectacular committee Susan Graham and Mary Maxon Many very delicate issues Sitting at the kiddie table can be problematical (but, again,

you play the hand you’re dealt) Close liaison to the Administration is incredibly important As is follow-through

Themes of the PCAST NITRD report Networking and information technology R&D changes the

world Networking and information technology R&D drives our

prosperity Networking and information technology is the dominant

factor in America’s science and technology employment The Federal Government has played, and must continue to

play, an essential role There is tremendous potential for – and tremendous need

for – further breakthroughs

Many areas of networking and information technology are now as important as high performance computing as measures of our nation’s competitiveness

Within high performance computing, competition based on traditional benchmarks should not be allowed to crowd out game-changing research or efforts to extract maximum benefit from leading-edge systems

The Nation is investing far less in networking and information technology R&D than is shown in the Federal budget

There must be specific new investments in networking and information technology R&D focused on achieving America’s priorities

There must be increased investment in networking and information technology research frontiers that will accelerate progress across a broad range of priorities

A broad, high-level standing committee dedicated to providing sustained strategic advice in networking and information technology should be established

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education must be improved, and computer science must be embraced as an essential component of STEM

More accurate reporting of our nation’s networking and information technology R&D investment is essential

http://cra.org/nitrd/

Advisory Committees 101ExperienceSlide Number 3Slide Number 4Slide Number 5NRC committeesSlide Number 7Slide Number 8Slide Number 9Slide Number 10Slide Number 11Slide Number 12Slide Number 13Slide Number 14Slide Number 15Agency advisory committeesBroad advisory committees: PITAC under President G.W. BushSlide Number 18Slide Number 19Slide Number 20Broad advisory committees: PCAST NITRD Working GroupSlide Number 22Slide Number 23Slide Number 24Slide Number 25Slide Number 26Slide Number 27Slide Number 28Slide Number 29Slide Number 30Slide Number 31Slide Number 32Slide Number 33Slide Number 34