Technology, yes. Management reform, not so much.

I think Ezra Klein's point that the policy review teams Obama announced yesterday indicate that he’s picked a few priorities for policy review is well taken. But I take issue with the suggestion that the fact that there’s a “Technology, Innovation, and Government Reform” team indicates that management is a priority to the new administration. This team appears to be a technology policy review team, not a government reform team.

First, let's look at the team members' resumes. Unlike the agency review teams that deal with government, where the participants bring a real diversity of relevant experience, the resumes of Blair Levin, Sonal Shah and Julius Genachowski are heavily weighted toward technology. Both Levin and Genachowski worked at the Federal Communications Commission, and for both, that is their only experience working in a government agency. Shah worked at Treasury -- but on policy rather than administration issues -- and at the National Security Council.

There's no question that Levin, Shah and Genachowski have sterling technology reform resumes, and obviously that's an important policy issue to pursue. And it's clear that Obama sees a connection between technology and government reform. Whether it's his Google for Government proposals or having the first transition blog, technology is Obama's vehicle of choice for transparency.

But it's not enough. This would have been a great place to get a serious management person on board, someone with deep, deep experience with the civilian and political workforces. It didn't happen, and that's a lost opportunity. Maybe these folks have really innovative government reform ideas. Maybe they're ethics experts. Maybe they have some cutting-edge private sector models they think would work in government that we're all going to think is a game-changer. I hope so. But least in Obama’s choice of people to run this team, government reform is just a tacked-on phrase.