There's been a lot of reading between the lines of Twitter's job posting for a DC-based government liaison (and even one instance of actual follow-up reporting). One post really caught my attention - because I disagree with it so vehemently.
My friend Alan W. Silberberg, a Gov 2.0 innovator and founding organizer of Gov 2.0 LA, argued that, "Twitter needs a government relations expect who is also a social media expert. Not the other way around." His five-point post went on to urge a traditional (if exceptionally well-qualified in the type) Beltway insider for the new post, which Twitter envisions heading up an emerging public affairs shop.
Wrote Silberbeg (who said he is not applying):
Because of the Giants amongst us like Microsoft, Google, Facebook - Twitter's entry into the Government space has to be taken carefully. The Giants have armies of lobbyists, lawyers, pr firms, etc. The Twitter person needs to be able to navigate these waters with firm decision making. Time spent getting up to speed will only hurt the company, and its investors like Union Square's Fred Wilson. This goes back to my first point. Twitter needs to hire someone known in the Gov 2.0 space - but also known in DC. IN Government. No offense to my peers and friends applying for this job - but it clearly says that they are looking for a DC area person who already has Government experience. That really means connections, access and understanding of the policies and ethics surrounding these changing times.
I'm not going to do a point-by-point, because Alan's arguments are sound from the perspective of traditional government relations.
But our times urgently call for the non-traditional. I often say that my social media-fueled campaign for Congress last year was a few years too early.
Hiring anyone but a visionary for Twitter's first government-facing employee would be be a few years too late.
As a friend in government recently said to me, "We have the next 10 years to shape the next 30." Our government is a massive public engagement fail, and aping its nature of privilege and insider connections would be a disaster.
Another friend, Shaun Dakin, anti-robocall activist and dot-com era veteran, is applying for the post and today gave his reaction to Silberberg's post and the job description's inclusion of "entrepreneurial" qualities.
People used to working in Gov't and big companies (I was there, big time, with Fannie Mae and FedEx) are used to WAITING for permission to do things. They do research. They go to meetings. They brainstorm. They rarely DO anything.
Entrepreneurs, on the other hand, don't really ask anyone for permission. They just do.
... Critically, I think, they know how to get things done with few resources.
Perhaps Twitter thinks that whomever is in this role (he or she) will be really "starting up" not just a new office but also a new line of business for Twitter.
So, my recommendation to Twitter would be to look hard at if the person has had to DO.
In the past couple years, hundreds of driven and innovative political and government media and engagement strategists have qualified themselves for this position. I hope Twitter picks from that number.
Silberbeg: Gov 2.0 and Twitter Finally Tweet-up!