Is Armchair Quarterbacking of healthcare.gov really good for the site?
The site was released this month, publicly. Should we really analyze the site that quickly and only take the pessimistic view. I know the site is a political football already, let's not make snap decisions before even the month is up.
* I am curious how analysts got a hold of the code? Is it closed source or open source. If auditors were allowed in to look at the code, then why not analyze the code over the life of the project and critically analyze it early on as opposed to weeks after release.
* If you don't have access to the full repository of source, then how can you call the project a failure? Who looks at snippets of JavaScript and then declare the project horrible.
* And why just this site? I have heard of CGI and SAIC and QSSI. There are many enterprise software firms out there that work with government contracts. Why is suddenly this one abyssal failure?
* I feel that the customers of the site (whoever launched the contract with CGI/QSSI) should have the last input on how the site should be enhanced or fixed. Random people on the Internet throwing out there suggestions can't be healthy. And I even wonder if Obama suggesting that he would talk with industry leaders was nothing more than politics. The contract was not between "industry leaders" and the government. Apparently the contract was awarded to CGI. Why get the entire software community involved?
* I remember, people were critical of Paul Graham's code and site, news.ycombinator.com. It seems to have survived, I wonder how many of those suggestions were really taking into consideration.