WEB 2.0 Australia guv

[nosferatu_dj]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Describing his session at BarCamp Sydney 5 as a way to get free money from the government, Matthew Landauer talks about Australia's Government 2.0 task force and how they are looking to spend for web savvy people with innovative ideas on meshing the web with government.

WATCH VIDEO AT THE BOTTOM OF LINK

now the NWO nazi GUV is PAYING people to spy on each other and collect info on EVERYTHING people do on the internet.

http://gov2.net.au/ LINK


Some early reflections
2009 June 30
1 Comment
by martinstewartweeks

A few quick thoughts from the initial launch of the Task Force…

There was some early discussion about the credibility of the task force itself and its lack of obvious ‘heavy’ web/tech representation. Actually the group is pretty balanced and has a good mix of perspectives. But I made the point at the Web 2.0 in Govt conference last week that people shouldn’t fuss too much about the TF and its membership, but rather see the announcement as a crack that ‘let’s the light in’ as Leonard Cohen might put it! It’s an opportunity and we all need to play a role in making the most of it.

It’s reasonable to expect that TF will demonstrate the principles and culture of Web 2 in its own operations and keep the conversation as open and “outside in” as possible.

We have to work out ways to engage these issues with key public sector leaders and policy makers. The point about Government 2.0 is that it is fundamentally a discussion about government itself. So we need to ‘mainstream’ its deliberations and conversations so it can’t be parked as a tech-driven side show.

We will also have to think carefully about the best way to talk with the communities we want to engage, including the already active and highly connected and those who may not yet be counted amongst the technorati but who have forceful views and great insights to share.

I think the task force is a massive opportunity to connect three big conversations – one about the emergence of a new public sector (culture, institutions, processes etc), one about improving service delivery and another about lifting the quality, reach and impact of citizen/community engagement. We should always try and keep the ‘frame’ of our deliberations as wide as possible to show how these three conversations, transformed by the instincts, tools and culture of the new social media, merge into a larger story.

Maybe we can see the TF as a combination of ‘platform’ (ie a space in which we can draw a sustained and energetic discussion, including linking to spaces where that discussion is already happening), a show case (to illustrate what’s possible and how it adds value) and offering helpful advice (to give government some practical guidance about how to accelerate the adoption of Web 2.0 tools, capabilities and behaviours in the public sector…). This last one especially…”don’t lecture us”, one public servant said the other day at the Web 2.0 conference…”give us advice and encouragement”. Good point…

Finally, it’s inevitable I guess that the conversations here on the blog and elsewhere will diverge in all sorts of directions. But we have a chance gradually to ‘sort and sift’ the ideas into some larger themes. A bit of structure won’t hurt! That’s not about narrowing the discussion but simply the reality that we need to balance the open debate with the need to respond to the specific questions we’ve been asked to consider.

from → Uncategorized
Data.gov
2009 June 28
2 Comments
by professorbrianfitzgerald

Data.gov

In giving evidence before the - Victorian Parliament - Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee’s Inquiry into Improving Access to Victorian Public Sector Information and Data my sister Professor Anne Fitzgerald quoted a passage from an article published in the Yale Journal of Law and Technology which addressed the role that the US federal government should have in modernising its internet infrastructure:

In order for public data to benefit from the same innovation and dynamism that characterize private parties’ use of the Internet, the federal government must reimagine its role as an information provider. Rather than struggling, as it currently does, to design sites that meet each enduser need, it should focus on creating a simple, reliable and publicly accessible infrastructure that “exposes” the underlying data. Private actors, either nonprofit or commercial, are better suited to deliver government information to citizens and can constantly create and reshape the tools individuals use to find and leverage public data. The best way to ensure that the government allows private parties to compete on equal terms in the provision of government data is to require that federal websites themselves use the same open systems for accessing the underlying data as they make available to the public at large. 328 (David Robinson, Harlan Yu, William Zeller, Edward Felten, ‘Government data and the invisible hand’, Yale Journal of Law and Technology, vol. 11, no. Fall 2008).

The Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee’s report quoted this evidence (at page 109)

The establishment of the Data.gov website in the US embodies this philosophy. (See as background President Obama’s Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies : Transparency and Open Government (January 2009))

The Data.gov website explains its role as follows:

About

The purpose of Data.gov is to increase public access to high value, machine readable datasets generated by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.

As a priority Open Government Initiative for President Obama’s administration, Data.gov increases the ability of the public to easily find, download, and use datasets that are generated and held by the Federal Government. Data.gov provides descriptions of the Federal datasets (metadata), information about how to access the datasets, and tools that leverage government datasets. The data catalogs will continue to grow as datasets are added. Federal, Executive Branch data are included in the first version of Data.gov.

Participatory Democracy

Public participation and collaboration will be one of the keys to the success of Data.gov. Data.gov enables the public to participate in government by providing downloadable Federal datasets to build applications, conduct analyses, and perform research. Data.gov will continue to improve based on feedback, comments, and recommendations from the public and therefore we encourage individuals to suggest datasets they’d like to see, rate and comment on current datasets, and suggest ways to improve the site.

Goal

A primary goal of Data.gov is to improve access to Federal data and expand creative use of those data beyond the walls of government by encouraging innovative ideas (e.g., web applications). Data.gov strives to make government more transparent and is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. The openness derived from Data.gov will strengthen our Nation’s democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

For some interesting examples of what can be done see Rewired State (UK)

from → Uncategorized
Access to PSI – Policy
2009 June 27
Leave a comment
by professorbrianfitzgerald

In relation to access to Public Sector Information (PSI) issues people may be interested in looking at some of the following documents.

In June 2008 the OECD recommended a set of principles for enhanced access to and use of PSI. Australia is a member of the OECD.

The Review of the National Innovation System (Cutler Review) in the Venturous Australia report in late 2008 recommended amongst other things that “Recommendation 7.7 – Australia should establish a National Information Strategy to optimise the flow of information in the Australian economy.” (See Chapter 7 generally)

A comprehensive literature review of access policies and principles has been undertaken by our research group at QUT.

Last Thursday the Victorian Parliament’s EDI Committee released it report titled: Inquiry into Improving Access to Victorian Public Sector Information and Data

from → Uncategorized
Layered Participation
2009 June 25
2 Comments
by Nicholas Gruen

If you click on this link you’ll find an interesting Vox Pop tool for public deliberation on what should be the “Top [policy] priorities for Australia”. Now although public discussion of this kind is by definition useful or at least wholly in the spirit of democracy, there’s a problem. Or rather a number of problems. One is that it’s a kind of Vox Pop approach to policy – which is to say that as people swim through the issues on the list and vote for or against various propositions, their views may be almost completely uninformed. Since we don’t require people to prove their informed to vote, this isn’t a show stopper. But nor are they representative. Not only are they not representative, but the moment such a site began to have any direct significance it would immediately be a potential target for various political campaigns. IIRC when Barack Obama asked citizens to nominate their top priorities in a similar kind of exercise, a group seeking to liberalise marijuana laws got going and registered thousands of votes to push their issue up the agenda.

Anyway Paul Roberts offers this gloss on the new tool (comment 10 in this discussion thread).

After some more thought I feel that I have a germ of an idea. I’d call it ”layered participation”. It just occurred to me this evening so I’m floating this as an idea without much critical analysis. I’ll see what the crowd reaction is.

The citizens priority tool would be broadly in line with as is developed. It would be used by the digital literati for the most part. I would call this the underlying layer. I’m suggesting an additional layer – an overarching one in terms of participation rate – drawing on the contributions from the underlying layer. The “overarching layer” would have an incredibly easy UI and would invite/attract many more citizens to share their view of priorities by polling them. Like, “Here are the top 5 priorities from the underlying layer, what do you think? Make your selection here”.

In summary, the concept is one of layered influence. Those willing and able to identify and describe a priority, and to make a judgment on a mass of other priorities, can do so. Those that are either not willing or able, through circumstance or whatever, can still participate at another level. Tick the box. As I say this is just the germ of an idea. It may be a silly idea. But I offer it for consideration.

No Paul, it’s not a silly idea – or at least I don’t think it is. It is the beginning of building a bridge between the simple vox pop and something which is offering some tentative possibilities of finding a way ofordering preferences. To do so it imposes opportunity costs on voting for one thing – because voting for one thing means not voting for something else – just as it does in a ballot box. Another thing I think is important is finding ways of building reputation on the net. Of course e-Bay has been doing it for a long time, as has www.ratemyprofessors.com. Slashdot has a protocol through which people can qualify to be unusually worthy commenters. We need to build those kinds of mechanisms to add depth to the discussion, rather than just have a cacophony of voices full of sound and fury and signifying nothing (well at least less than it might).

from → Uncategorized
Speech: Launch of the Government 2.0 Taskforce
2009 June 22
10 Comments
by Lindsay Tanner

THE HON LINDSAY TANNER MP
MINISTER FOR FINANCE AND DEREGULATION
MEMBER FOR MELBOURNE
LAUNCH OF THE GOVERNMENT 2.0 TASKFORCE
Government 2.0 Public Sphere, Parliament House
Monday 22 June 2009

read more…

from → Announcements, Events
Our design competition
2009 June 22
20 Comments
by Nicholas Gruen

Whilst preparing for the launch of the Taskforce and this website we were looking at a mock up of the site. It looked a little bare. We needed a banner. Then we thought . . . who better to supply the banner than you? So rather than send the job off to the department’s usual designer we thought we’d hold a competition to design a banner for our site, and a logo for the Taskforce.

The prize? Well like a lot of things on Web 2.0, there’s no money involved, just your pride in your work and the opportunity to have that pride vindicated and acknowledged publicly – in short a platform to show the world how good you are! And a platform to express graphically the potential of Government 2.0.

So get to it and good luck!
The fine print

The banner should be 920 pixels wide by 180 high. The logo can be in dimensions of your choosing. For quick loading, the file size of the banner should be no more than 50Ks. Note that the existing banner identifies the site, so your banner should do so too. The file size of your logo should be no more than 500Ks and may not be accepted if it is not. The logo should be provided in a scalable (preferably vector based) or high quality version so it can be incorporated in any potential printed documents. Please use a popular graphics format such as jpeg, png, gif, or psd. If we wish to use your design we’ll be in touch and can sort out any further technical details at that point and not subject to a file size limitation.

You should get entries in by 10 pm Friday 3rd July 2009 after which time they may not be considered.

Whether or not you win the competition, we will take any entry as consent to have the material you submit licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Use licence Australian variant 2.5.* This entails an implied assertion by you that the work is yours and/or that you have been granted permission to use and licence it under this licence. You further licence us to use the material in the event of us wishing to display or otherwise use the design you submit.

* This entails additional restrictions against commercial use compared with the default licence elsewhere on the site which is Creative Commons Attribution, Australian variant 2.5.

from → Competitions
Welcome to the Government 2.0 Taskforce
2009 June 22
61 Comments
by Nicholas Gruen
done

The expression Web 2.0 was coined by Tim O’Reilly . . .

Let me start that again. The line you have last read is well . . . wrong. I’ve been saying that Tim O’Reilly coined the expression for a while now – quoting other sources. But, wanting to check dates and link to an authoritative source Wikipedia corrected me. I think I first checked my facts on this from Wikipedia a while back. But the world has moved on.* This is what Wikipedia said at the time of writing this post. “The term “Web 2.0″ was coined by Darcy DiNucci in 1999.” So welcome to the world of Web 2.0, a world in which the internet has morphed from being an increasingly useful platform for connecting governments and firms with citizens for ‘point to point’ broadcasting and feedback, to being a platform for collaborative endeavour.

That’s the platform that brought us the extraordinary phenomenon of Wikipedia where people collaborate to build an encyclopedia in ‘real time’. I think of the miracle of software that writes itself – open source software – as the original Web 2.0 phenomenon, though some disagree because its roots go back at least to the early 1990s (depending on how you define terms). Then again, as I argued in a couple of pieces recently, Web 2.0 is a world in which public assets assemble themselves with no central funding from government. Language is the quintessential public good. Yet no one passed the hat around to fund its development. It developed as an accretion of life itself, as a byproduct of our natural human sociality. In fact there are lots of these (what I’ve called) ‘emergent public goods’ around, and yet economists have paid surprisingly little attention to them.

Another ‘emergent public good’ is government itself. read more…

[oneup]

Down with web 2.0!
Or Web -1 as I like to call it, usually you call something 2.0 when you've improved it. That is definitely not the case. IPV6 is an improvement.
It's a censored form of the internet. I'd be really sad when this becomes a reality.

[largejack]

Improved ??? They might as well call it Internet Ceefax

[oneup]

Originally Posted by largejack

Improved ??? They might as well call it Internet Ceefax

That's a good one
I said IPV6 is an improvement. Web 2 definitely isn't.

[nosferatu_dj]

Ouch! German Court Slams Rapidshare With $34 Million Fine (Updated)

60 Comments
by Robin Wauters on June 24, 2009

The Regional Court in Hamburg, Germany, has fined file-hosting service Rapidshare a hefty €24 million ($34 million) and has ruled that the company must start proactively filtering certain content. The case was brought on by copyright protection association GEMA, which claims it represent over 65,000 composers, authors and music publishers across the globe.

Update: looks like we jumped the gun on this one. The cited amount of €24 million is actually the value of the subject matter of this injunction verdict as determined by court, not the actual fine (although it could become that much).

Following a request made by the organization, the Hamburg court ruled that Rapidshare is forbidden from making any of 5,000 music tracks from GEMA’s collection available on the Internet. To comply, the company needs to make sure all of those tracks are removed from its servers and also ensure that they are not uploaded again by users. How the company is expected to do the latter, especially since many users upload files in ZIP format and password-protect them, is a mystery to me.

Rapidshare is wildly popular, with an Alexa rank of 14 and millions of unique visitors per month (Compete).

http://grapher.compete.com/rapidshare.com_uv_460.png

Late April, Ars Technica reported that the company had begun handing over user information to record labels looking to pursue illegal file-sharers. It’s also not the first time Rapidshare finds itself in court because of GEMA’s persistent attacks: it had already lost a similar case back in January 2008.

For this case, Rapidshare will appeal to higher courts and most likely restrict the scope of the decisions made by the Regional Court in Hamburg. Rapishare COO Bobby Chang, according to TorrentFreak, said “it would make more sense to offer music fans the right products and services at the right price to open up a new source of income for music-markets on the Internet.”

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/24...-million-fine/

[nosferatu_dj]

yup looks like it is the end of the internet as we know it.... no more freedom for internet users

[noewhan]

Start saving webpages or whole sites!

Even forums. If some pictures are not savable, press 'printscreen' and 'paste' them into paintbrush

If the internet does get slaughterd, I'm gunna cry Let's just hope someone out there has the balls to stop them.

[nosferatu_dj]

#
2009 July 2
Laurence Millar permalink

Good post Martin, there’s a bit of a global movement going on here….

http://globalvillagegovernance.blogs...r-another.html

Another Leonard Cohen quote comes to mind “Democracy is coming, to the USA”
Reply


#

*

#
2009 July 2
Jimi Bostock permalink

Hi Ben, I am in complete agreement with you. Yes, the main game is the stuff you talk about and I am not suggesting that the solution is sought before the problem/opportunities are well mapped.

The reason for having an industry rep and/or practical tech experience at the table is that they can do two things:

1. Listen in an observe the processes you rightly propose are the main game ATM. Through this they may help make any industry engagement work better because of their intimate knowledge of how we got to the problems.

This is really just a efficiency in that it can shorten the ‘briefing’ period as the person might come out of the processes you are talking about with some early ideas on the technology paradigms that may be important.

2. By being well versed in the technology, the person might be able to sometimes steer the conversation with some emerging technology in mind. Note, this is not about talking about that technology (although it might). It is more about the subtle difference that can come from having the technologist at the table.

But most important, it is the educational and knowledge transfer properties that can come from having the technologist at the table.

Our world, the web, is all about convergence and it is my experience that great web projects are best served by having the right people at the table.

I have just been through a web 2.0 issue with one of the local ACT Government departments and we were able to solve the issue and find a really great balance by having me, not a technologist as such (I can’t write code to save my life) and the executive work through it. I was able to help them with some of their issues through things like IP tracking, etc, to stop unbalanced views being expressed.

Anyway, I think that the die is cast and we should move on. IT is not so important and, as we can see, I and other industry players already have a seat at the table through this great forum.

Pose another set of thoughts Martin and Co. You can count on me to try to help with my thoughts, for whatever they are worth to the great undertaking you are steering.



2009 July 2
Jimi Bostock permalink

Yes Lisa, you are spot on. None of my suggestions were about not undertaking the considerations as described and with the experienced people on the task force. As you say, it is about also having the technology and tech paradigms at play.

After all, discussion of the “technology” can easily miss the point that it is actually people making technology do things. It is not technology doing it by itself. And the people that are making technology do things that should be heard.



2009 July 2
lisaharvey permalink

It is my experience that the process for defining a problem in a technology context is more itterative. In many ways(though not all) we would not be having this discussion without the technologies that enable engagement in new ways. Technology is integral to the problem.

There is value in the process that asks “What can or will technology do for us?” and then asking “How can or should, and in particular how might, people and institutions respond?”

In the end technology is more about people and process than it is about technology.

I agree that models for engagement should not be framed in terms of specific technologies, that would create a use-by-date, they must be more fundamental than that. The challenge is to frame something that works in today’s technology landscape and still works 5 or 15 years from now.

You are right, Ben, engagement models must be about engagement not technology, and they should also be about technology.



2009 July 1
ben rogers permalink

great to see the taskforce members being so actively engaged here… its almost like its a conversation :-)

I would like to register a vote in support of the stance Martin has taken with respect to stepping back from the tech some – the tech is the fun stuff, the detail stuff – sure there are some issues on how to reach unconnected people, but the big issues the taskforce need to get across are about changing the model – changing the way govt engages with the public, how it governs – the level of transparency around its actions. The tech is a great enabler but it needs a problem to solve first.. lets work out what that is, before diving headlong into tech solutions.

great work team – keep up the engagement.



2009 July 1
Jimi Bostock permalink

Hi folks, what a quality discussion.I am not so sure about suggestions of people hogging the conversation. I think the responses from the ‘officials’ is fantastic.

I am not sure what can be added. It is my honest opinion that the policy and the technology need to be at the table simultaneously and in a collaborative and ‘equal’ measure.

I think this will remain an issue as you good folks go forward and the line about it not being about the task force membership doesn’t sound very web 2.0 to me.

It sounds like the foundation steps are set in stone before we were told. I think I mistook this as being about tossing up some ideas and that the government might change things based on what interested parties say.

Anyways, I have to get back to making websites and I look forward to seeing where the task force ends up getting to without the formal membership of the industry (specifically AIMIA).


2009 July 1
Rob Manson permalink

+1 for engagement



2009 July 1
Jimi Bostock permalink

Yes, more from task force members and I agree Nicholas, I think that Peter is doing a wonderful job (with the caveat posted above)



2009 July 1
Nicholas Gruen permalink

It’s a bit difficult to judge the ‘mood’ of the group. Having spent some time with Martin, he doesn’t seem to hog or dominate conversation to me. I’m certainly surprised that Tony deprecates what looks to me like Martin’s conscientious attempt to engage with people’s comments on his post. It was his post after all, so it makes sense for him to clarify and extend his comments where he thinks that is helpful. My judgement of the general tenor of comments on this blog so far is that many (I suspect most) people on this blog would prefer to hear more from Taskforce members rather than less.

But I’d be interested in others’ views.



2009 July 1
Jimi Bostock permalink

traitor – no, really, good questions but are we sure that one needs to step back from technical capability … I just find that a bit like wanting to build an amazing designers house but stepping back from architecture and building materials.

Might be wrong but I think best that we just keep the channels open between the industry and AGIMO, if that is possible

[nosferatu_dj]

2009 July 1
Tony Gilbert permalink

As nominally a web-tech person (web manager), I think it’s good to step back from technical capability and look at customer demand and business needs independently of delivery systems. This sets the horizon for the next stage of technical development. Without such far horizons, technology progresses either too slowly, or inappropriately. We have all seen examples of solutions looking for a problem.

I’d also like to suggest the you don’t reply to every comment, Martin. It makes it appear like you need to dominate the conversation.



2009 July 1
Jimi Bostock permalink

Hi Peter. I am glad that your team are in the picture on this important government priority. I am glad that Martin sees a new beginning for engagement with my industry.



2009 July 1
Martin Stewart-Weeks permalink

I’m rarely disparaging – least of all about technology people! But Peter has got it spot on. And it occurs to me, picking up one of his points, that the next 6 months holds out the possibility of a new level of engagement between the web development community and those in government and the public sector. We’ll all find out a lot more about each other I suspect, which I’m assuming will be a good thing.



2009 June 30
Peter Alexander permalink

I think MSW is spot on with his comments here – and to respond specifically to Jimi: My view is that the TF is well balanced. Web developers are not being left out of the TF – we encourage their participation in this conversation – several government members of the TF have web development experience AND the secretariat for the TF is being provided by my team within AGIMO – Online Services along with secondees from several agencies. Online Services within AGIMO have a focus on web policy and development – and we manage australia.gov.au and its major enhancement under the AGOSP program.

We know we don’t know everything about web development and constantly engage the web development community to help us. One of the reasons that I am so glad that the TF is running is the potential it has to deliver us even greater opportunity to engage in our policy development, in our service delivery and more.

I am also sure MSW did not mean to be disparaging about technology (or developers) – I would put it this way – we have a great number of obstacles in our way but technology is not one of the big blockers.



2009 July 1
Jimi Bostock permalink

Right on the money Janet, it is going to be an amazing journey for all involved.

Pretty good answering Martin but, in the spirit of open dialogue, can I suggest that you shape your answers with less expressions such as “so wrong”.

I am aware of your background and acknowledge it. I can’t acknowledge your experience in the web space but I might be wrong and just haven’t found your experience in the web space.

The key thing here is probably best described by the caveat we always make sure our clients understand – we reserve the right to be wrong. Indeed, I am often needing to go to clients and tell them that things we thought yesterday (or last week, month, etc) are actually now wrong.

I, myself, am looking forward to the rest of my life being spent learning about this interweb thing and I actually believe the skill of being comfortable when proven wrong is central to the web space.

So, yep, perhaps a little less of the “so wrong” type of reactions might help this develop into a quality discussion.

Martin is on the money when he highlights the anxieties that will come with this venture.

I have found one remedy for this and that is for the anxious to spend time with the webbies.

This is not without difficulty. To illuminate, with complete respect to all of the good people on the panel, I have young fellas here in the office who know more about web 2.0 than all of you combined.

It’s that they spend every waking hour in some way on the web. Here they are building the stuff and outside they are living on it. These kidults (as I call them) have not known a life without the web.

They are digital natives.

The problem with spending time with them is that they have some qualities that might not go so well in a government/corporate environment. Some are:

They often smell

They don’t like to wear shoes

They tend to completely tactless

They choose to not talk to people still using IE 6. They think they are evil people who want to hold back their innovations (so that would be the average federal public servant

They wouldn’t be seen dead talking to the people who need to talk to them.

So, the task force is going to have to work out how to get them to the table or at least their thinking.

In the end, Janet has it all said much better than I could. The need to be able to change is the key and she is right to wonder how this concept will get up in government (although Obama is starting to get some runs on the board).

Perhaps that the membership of the task force is set in stone despite what any of us says is an omen that change is not going to come easy – after all Martin, its just a few more sandwiches and another chair



2009 July 1
Martin Stewart-Weeks permalink

Indeed.

There is some truth to the observation that some aspects of public policy work – for example, the need to ensure appropriate ‘clearance’ for comments made in the name of a whole government or part of the government – make it hard to translate easily the fun, flexible and furious world of social networking to the public sector. But perhaps not as much truth as some might claim who are anxious to use the assertion to disguise a deeper antipathy to a model of working and engagement that might seem too disruptive and unsettling to the more comfortable rhythms to which they have become accustomed.



2009 June 30
Janet C permalink

Picking up the point in the quote from Prof. Ann Fitzgerald, I detect that there is a widening chasm between our experience of the systems we use in our private lives (social networking, wiki’s, news sites, google, shopping on-line, ebay, youtube etc etc – which are easy to navigate, fun to use, entertaining, quick & efficient and which meet our needs – when compared to the web sites developed by governments and the on-line tools tools used for community engagement and/or interacting with clients, (one-way communication, difficult to navigate/find things, frustrating to use, search tools that are not intuitive, prosaic writing styles and a ‘here is the information we think you should have’ tone. One of the issues the taskforce will confront sooner or later is the readiness of public service policy and decision makers to change and adapt their way of working. As Neil H observed, the capabilities need to be there as well as the technology tools.



2009 July 1
Martin Stewart-Weeks permalink

You are so right and so wrong. Right in the reaffirmation that the new public sector and the rise of the new social technologies are inextricably linked. Wrong in your assessment, which I understand but with which I completely disagre, that my concern about becoming a tech-driven side show is in some way disparaging of technology. Completely the reverse. As a complete non-technologist working for one of the world’s leading technology companies, Icame to the conclusion some time ago that technology was not a side-show. My point is that the TF should offer the opportunity to convince others of the same truth.



2009 June 30
Jimi Bostock permalink

Sorry, I forgot to add one specific comment.

Your mention of a “a tech-driven side show” is very revealing.

At the risk of pushing you further from the points being made since this whole e-venture started, the comment hints at a disparaging view of technology.

You are very right, at this point and going forward, the questions are about government itself but you omit that, no matter what, it will be an exploration of government using technology.

You need the technology and, most importantly, the technology paradigms at the centre of your thinking and I am sure that a representative body like AIMIA could bring this to the table.



2009 July 1
Martin Stewart-Weeks permalink

You might be right but I’m going to stick with my original thesis, which is that in the venture on which we’re embarked the real test shouldn’t be who is on or off the taskforce, but whether we can create the conditions in which the expertise and insight of those with something to add not only get heard but influence the outcome. As Peter Drucker once notably pointed out, the test in any successful organisation is to privilege contribution over status. In the wonderful world of Web 2.0, the very exciting evolution of that deceptively simply, but profoundly subversive precept, is that status is now increasingly a function of contribution. Status is becoming a condition you earn, not something which is necssarily conferred or in the gift of someone else (like a Minister, perhaps?).

I stand by my claim that the taskforce isn’t really the point (although we can help to shape, to clarify and to assemble the pieces of the puzzle in compelling ways). Almost by definition, much of the “smarts” needed to fulfil the Minister’s brief are not on the taskforce.

[nosferatu_dj]

2009 June 30
Jimi Bostock permalink

Great to see your comprehensive response to the comments.

This is a copy of a post I placed earlier, I think it still applies.

You address points pretty well but I must say that the emerging ‘don’t worry about the make up of the taskforce’ doesn’t cut it with me.

I have been in this new media game for more than 20 years now. I have seen it all – the creative nation, the OGO, the NOIE, the Ministers, etc, etc, and the AGIMO

That there is no one from the web development industry on the panel says to me that this could well be another ill fated e-venture from the folks that have been misdirecting policy in the online space for more than a decade.

You need to involve AIMIA going forward. It is as simple as that in my eyes. Surely amongst all the folks on your panel, there must be space for just one bod from the actual industry that enables the very things you seek to explore.



2009 July 1
Martin Stewart-Weeks permalink

I suspect Kate Lundy and I are in furiuous agreement. There may be a number of ways of conceiving and articulating these themes, but I agree that a large, ambitious frame for this discussion is essential. Not only to give the individual pieces of the debate some coherence, but to remind us all the time about what is really at stake here.



2009 June 30
Rob Manson permalink

Hi Martin,

from the involvement I’ve observed and experienced with the Taskforce so far I’m actually really up-beat about how this can all play out. I think there have been a few mixed-message, however the TF’s level of engagement with the community really seems to be building.

I’m also interested in hearing how you think your “3 big conversations” relate to the “three pillars of Open Government” outlined by Sen. Kate Lundy before #publicsphere 2

* Citizen-centric services
* Open and transparent government
* Innovation facilitation

It would be great to have this sort of high-level framework agreed early on so the structure of this discussion can build upon that.

#publicsphere 2 was a great day – however I think it would have really benefited from using a framework like this to make it all a bit more integrated.

I look forward to watching this discussion develop further…



2009 July 1
Martin Stewart-Weeks permalink

How could I posisble disagree!! At one level, this entire venture is about risk – how we define it, avoid it, manage it. The whole point about Web 2.0 is that it changes the calculations we make about risk at least , in part, because it changes the risk calculus by making it easier and faster to try, fail and then try again.

Now, life is not that simple of course, especially in government when people’s lives may well depend on how well you engage the risk issues. Nonetheless, there is something profound going on as the new social technologies, whose whole ethos is about “try, learn fast, fail quickly and then try something better”, bump up against a public sector culture which, perhaps in some situations for very good reason, is more about someting altogether slower and more considered.



2009 June 30
NeilH permalink

I hope this web 2.0 taskforce can put some capabiliies out there in the public space without worrying too much about the design or worthiness of the capabilities. I think we (in government) are entering new territory with Web 2.0 and in reality we have fairly little idea what will, or will not work effectively. Though there is some evidence from other governments or teh comemrcial sector I agree.
So, can I suggest that we take the risk (not a nice word I know)of distributing some capabilities out there into the public space without spending too much time thinking about it? Yes, some will fail miserably, but that is ok, so long as some succeed – and that’s not something we can guarantee.
Go on, take some risks – please…………

[nosferatu_dj]

What is "Net Neutrality?" - YouTube

What is "Net Neutrality?" - YouTube

http://www.savetheinternet.com/