Ellen posted the following on her blog at Sunlight Foundation today:

It’s time for some personal and professional transparency.

After a long, challenging and very satisfying career in public interest work, I have decided that it’s time to retire. When I was a young congressional staffer, I thought changing the world was going to be a sprint. In the middle of my career, when I launched the Center for Responsive Politics and then started Public Campaign, I thought it was going to be a marathon and you just had to be a long distance runner; so I trained up for that. Now, after eight years building and running the Sunlight Foundation, I now see this process as a relay race — and one where I’m glad to say there are many other great people running alongside me, including the terrific team we have built here at Sunlight. It’s truly extraordinary. And it’s time to pass the baton.

I recently informed the Sunlight board of my intention to step down by the end of 2014. The board has appointed a search committee, and a job description for interested applicants for the Executive Director position will be posted soon. Before I leave, I’m going to make sure that Sunlight is in the strongest shape possible for my successor, because the work we do here is absolutely vital.

Sunlight’s uses of open data and the web have created an exploding interest in civic technologies as tools for accountability. Our mantra around openness and transparency — not just for governments but for society as a whole — have taken root and are becoming the norm. Our open (by default) data, software and platforms have pioneered a new standard for many organizations. And Sunlight’s vision to use technology to enable more complete, equitable and effective democratic participation has inspired many throughout the world.

I couldn’t be more pleased or grateful to all who have worked with me at Sunlight toward all these accomplishments. I especially want to single out and thank Mike Klein, Sunlight’s co-founder, who was an unwavering partner and personal inspiration during my tenure. I also couldn’t be more grateful for all the extraordinary support we’ve received, both large and small, for this work.

I truly believe that open and equal access to information is the bedrock of democracy. Without it, citizens cannot make informed decisions. With it, citizens learn who and what they can trust. This belief has always been the passion of my life as it will always be the Sunlight Foundation’s goal.

Continue reading »

So in a moment of weakness, my wife Ellen and I agreed to move into my elder daughter (Annie) and son-in-law’s (Danny) house a couple of weekends ago to take care of the three kids for 24 hours. Annie was surprising Danny for his upcoming 40th birthday with a night ‘on the town’ in DC with their friends.

Promises have a way of coming due, and so we kept our word.

As you can see from the picture above, the kids are getting to be a handful. But we all survived, and I don’t even have my usual list of ‘disasters’ to write about.

But I did get to thinking about the differences between one child, two, and three.

I’ve always felt that two kids were not just one more than one kid. And that three kids simply multiplies the possibilities  – joys, opportunities, challenges, etc…

For example, with just one kid, there are only four possible combinations (groupings) that have to learn to get along: Annie + Danny + Eli (1); Annie + Danny vs Eli (2); Annie + Eli vs Danny (3); and Danny + Eli vs Annie (4).

When you add another child, Abby, for example, the combinations, groupings jump to 8.

When you add a third child, Ryan, for example, the combinations jump to 16.

(Not being sure of my math skills, I checked with my numbers’ cruncher (btilis) whose first response was a request for more information (could there only be two separate groups or could there also be a group of all individuals). Then he responded, “I really don’t know.  I tried writing them out and can’t come up with a pattern (my brain is fried).  The multiple teams really throws things off for me.”

(So I tried to simplify it for him (and he’s the numbers guy, not me), saying just groups, no individuals. His response, I’ll spare you the details, matched mine from above if you also allow for one grouping of all the individuals.)

Bottom line: the difference in the combinations of groups jumps from 4 to 8 to 16, which are multiples, confirming my instinct that having two or three kids is not like adding one or two more. Its a geometric increase, not an arithmetic one.

But then any of you who have more than one kid certainly doesn’t need this posting to confirm that.

Pictures probably say it better:

1. With one child, there are only four possible groups (groupings) that have to learn to get along:

2. With two children, that jumps to eight:

3. With three, the combinations double to 16: