Subject: Re: Are you both ok with this email for HRC?
From: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>
To: Robert Mook <[email-masked]>
Cc: John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:01:17 -0400

great

my suggested revisions below and in track changes so you can see them
attached -- see my one comment.

cdm

Madame Secretary,

I hope all is well and congratulations on a fantastic event in
Pennsylvania.  I was on the phone with the Wolff team for some DGA work and
they couldn't have been more pleased.  Obviously the press was fantastic as
well!

Two things I wanted to relay:

First, I hope the most recent binder was helpful.  I know there were A LOT
of big and small issues in there, including an ambitious schedule for
interviews.  Understanding that everyone has incredibly busy schedules
before Election Day, I think it makes sense to push the interview timeline
later and spend as much time as we need in November to align on the needs
and structure of the campaign architecture and a hiring process that meets
those needs, as well as other key operational pieces like media and
technology.  Hiring should not be rushed, so if giving you the time to
discuss, reflect and and agree on a process that meets your needs slows
things by a week or two, that works assuming you are comfortable with that.

Let me know if you agree and I can work with Cheryl to ensure we have time
on the schedule in November.

Second, I also understand that you wanted to learn more about what's
happening on technology and any website, so below is a quick snapshot of
the state of play.  I've also attached the memo that was in the most recent
binder.  Feel free to call if you want to discuss this in more detail, or
we can set up a conference call to discuss as a group.  This is an
important aspect of planning, so by all means I want your flag on any
issues or questions.

*The big picture: *

We are laying the groundwork for a website that can go up if and when you
decide to announce an exploratory committee.  The purpose of this site is
to allow visitors to donate, sign up, and invite other people to the site
via social media (this would be the "new" feature).  All the features of
this site will be fully tested and backed up.  A significantly
expanded--and very different looking--website will go up if/when you
officially launch your campaign, with many more features, some of them
new.  This is all outlined in the attached memo.

*Eric Schmidt's company "Groundwork"*

Eric has a small staff of about ten people in Brooklyn working on two key
tools for the web page, which are listed below. They would be great to have
[c1] <#_msocom_1> and would help the site work better in the future;
however, we are prepared to move forward without them and have tested
backup alternativess from the Obama campaign that are ready to use at any
time.

I deliberately told Eric's team that we would need any tools he might
create by mid-November so there is plenty of time to test them should you
decide to use them.  As of this week, they still say they will meet that
deadline, but I remain cautious/skeptical until the tools are complete and
tested.

These tools are:

*1. Sign up function*: this tool will allow a committe to more dynamically
optimize sign up pages in the future.  For example, it would permit a
committee to find out if sign up page A is generates more sign ups than
page B.

*2. "Quick donate"*: this is the tool that would allow a committee to save
someone's credit card information so that any future donations can be made
in one click.  This is obviously a huge revenue booster.

Contrary to what Eric sometimes implies in his conversations with others,
his team is NOT building a " website".  Speaking candidly, it's fantastic
that Eric has devoted resources to creating these new tools and it's
resource a potential campaign can leverage, but we are not relying on him
to have these tools available; we would  consider anything his team
delivers as "gravy".  His team may continue to build new tools well into
next year and/or the campaign may choose to hire some of his staff, but
this is not integral to what your tech strategy should be.

*The website team*

The team building the website itself is led by Dan Ryan, the developer for
President Obama's 2012 campaign, and Teddy Goff, President Obama's Digital
Director.  We are operating under the precautionary assumption that legally
we cannot begin designing the visual part of the site until 4-5 weeks
before you decide to announce an exploratory committee, since this would
require contracting with designers (there's also a risk of leaks).  So, the
backend architecture is being built (and can be used by any candidate
should you not run), but what you can see on a screen and interact with
will not likely start until a month before your exploratory is officially
constituted.

The features for the site will be a mix of off-the-shelf tools from major
web companies, as well as tested tools used by the Obama campaign.

*Leadership*

One of the reasons I think the CTO should be early in the hiring schedule
is that the CTO should act as a guide on the technology strategy as a whole
and work with you and the campaign leadership at the beginning to develop a
true vision for the role tech will play and actual projects the campaign
should invest in.  It's important that the campaign not embrace technology
for its own sake, but rather be clear about a series of challenges
technology needs to solve and what can realistically be accomplished.  For
example, we know right now that a volunteer should be able to canvass
door-to-door using their cell phone, that's a problem we know we can solve,
but we would need to start solving it early next year so there's time for
it to be tested and used in the field.

Experts like Eric will each have their points of view, which are important
and should be consulted via a tech steering committee, but it's important
to have someone firmly grounded in the realities of the campaign and the
end-user's experience to guide the ultimate vision.  I would suggest that
we discuss how to make the process of hiring the CTO as enriching as
possible for all of us, from who we consult for prospects to perhaps asking
the final candidates to present their ideas so you can see different
perspectives.  Regardless, I think this person should be seen as an early
hire to bring some concrete thinking to the myriad of technological
possibilities.

Thinking through the process of hiring this person and who else you want to
consult should be a priority action item after the election.

I hope all of this is helpful and don't hesitate to call with questions.

Best,

Robby
 ------------------------------

 [c1] <#_msoanchor_1>When - at exploratory launch or at committee launch?

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Robert Mook <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Madame Secretary,
> I hope all is well and congratulations on a fantastic event in
> Pennsylvania.  I was on the phone with the Wolff team for some DGA work and
> they couldn't have been more pleased.  Obviously the press was fantastic as
> well!
>
> Two things I wanted to relay:
>
> First, I hope the most recent binder was helpful.  I know there were A LOT
> of big and small issues in there, including an abitious schedule for
> interviews.  Understanding that everyone has incredibly busy schedules
> before Election Day, I think it makes sense to push the interview timeline
> a bit later and spend as much time as we need in November to align on the
> hiring process, as well as other key operational pieces like media and
> technology.  The hiring process should not be rushed, so if giving
> ourselves the time to discuss and agree on a process delays things a week
> or two, so be it.
>
> Let me know if you agree and I can work with Cheryl to ensure we have that
> time on the schedule in early November.
>
> Second, I also understand that you wanted to know more about what's
> happening on technology and the website, so below is a quick snapshot of
> the state of play.  I've also attached the memo that was in the most recent
> binder.  Feel free to call if you want to discuss this in more detail, or
> we can set up a conference call to discuss as a group.  This is an
> important aspect of planning, so by all means flag issues or questions.
>
> *The big picture: *
> We are in the process of developing a website that can go up if you decide
> to announce an exploratory committee.  The purpose of this site is to allow
> visitors to donate, sign up, and invite other people to the site via social
> media (this is the "new" feature).  All the features of this site will be
> fully tested and backed up.  A significantly expanded--and very different
> looking--website will go up when/if you officially launch your campaign,
> with many more features, some of them new.  This is all outlined in the
> attached memo.
>
> *Eric Schmidt's company "Groundwork"*
> Eric has a small staff of about ten people in Brooklyn working on two key
> tools for the web page, which are listed below. They would be great to have
> and would help the site work better in the future, however we are fully
> prepared to move forward without them and have tested backups from the
> Obama campaign ready to use at any time.
> I deliberately told Eric's team that we need these tools by mid-November
> so we have plenty of time to test them.  As of this week, they still say
> they will meet that deadline, but we should be remain cautious until the
> tools are complete and tested.
> These tools are:
>
> *1. Sign up function:* this tool will allow us to more dynamically
> optimize sign up pages in the future.  For example, we will be able to find
> out if sign up page A is generates more sign ups than page B.
>
> *2. "Quick donate":* this is the tool that allows us to save someone's
> credit card information so that any future donations can be made in one
> click.  This is obviously a huge revenue booster.
>
> Eric's team is NOT building a "complete website", which I know he
> sometimes implies.  Speaking candidly, it's fantastic that Eric has devoted
> resources to creating these new tools and it's resource a potential
> campaign can leverage, but we are in no way depending on him and will
> consider anything his team delivers as "gravy".  His team may continue to
> build new tools well into next year and/or the campaign may choose to hire
> some of his staff, but this is all up in the air and in no way integral to
> what your tech strategy should be.
>
> *The website team*
> The team building the website itself is led by Dan Ryan, the developer for
> President Obama's 2012 campaign, and Teddy Goff, President Obama's Digital
> Director.  While official legal advice is pending, we are operating under
> the assumption that we cannot begin designing the visual part of the site
> until 4-5 weeks before you choose to announce an exploratory committee,
> since this would require contracting with designers (there's also a risk of
> leaks).  So, the backend architecture is being built, but what you can see
> on a screen and interact with cannot start until a month before your
> exploratory goes public.
> The features for the site will be a mix of off-the-shelf tools from major
> web companies, as well as tested tools used by the Obama campaign.
>
> *Leadership*
> One of the reasons I put the CTO so early on the hiring schedule is that
> the CTO should act as a guide on the technology strategy as a whole and
> work with you and the campaign leadership right at the beginning to develop
> a true vision for the role tech will play and actual projects the campaign
> should invest in.  It's important that the campaign no embrace technology
> for its own sake, but rather be clear about a series of challenges
> technology needs to solve and what can realistically be accomplished.  For
> example, we know right now that a volunteer should be able to canvass
> door-to-door using their cell phone, that's a problem we know we can solve,
> but we need to start solving it early next year so there's time for it to
> be tested and used in the field.
>
> Experts like Eric will each have their points of view, which are going to
> be very important and should be consulted via a tech steering committee,
> but it's important to have someone firmly grounded in the realities of the
> campaign to guide the ultimate vision.  I would suggest that we discuss how
> to make the process of hiring the CTO as enriching as possible for all of
> us, from who we consult for prospects to perhaps asking the final
> candidates to write out their ideas so you can see different perspectives.
> Regardless, I think this person should be seen as an early hire who can
> help bring some concrete thinking to the myriad of technological
> possibilities.
> Thinking through the process of hiring this person and who else you want
> to consult should be a priority action item after the election.
>
> I hope all of this is helpful and don't hesitate to call with questions.
> We can also set up a call for all of us to discuss this together.
>
> Best,
>
> Robby
>