Is Open Gov Dying ?

Distressing news about Open Gov stalling in the UK and US.

A BBC Article from May 16 says:

"The United States initiative, data.gov, set off with similar goals to those outlined by George Osborne today, but has now hit a few roadbumps.

Last month, its funding was slashed as part of the budget settlement between the White House and the House of Representatives, and its very survival appears to be under threat.

Even worse, the traffic figures appear to show that the US government's data transparency sites have failed to attract much interest from citizens - although the data community loves them."

Open GOV in Canada, thanks to Canadian Civil Servants themselves ?

Canadians continue to allow their institutions to operate above public scrutiny, even in this age of open data. Despite this new ray of hope, it seems to be commonly admitted now that Canadians are lagging behind.

From the Winnipeg Free Press:

OTTAWA - Civil servants are forging ahead with an open-data strategy for the federal government while politicians drag their heels on a formal policy.

A parliamentary committee has been studying the issue since last April and resumes debate this week, but documents obtained under Access to Information show that bureaucrats started drafting a plan in July.

Unlike the United States and Britain, Canada has no formal federal policy of making raw, taxpayer-funded data freely available to the public.

Civil servants have realized that needs to change.

At the July meeting to kick off the strategy, they drafted a five-point plan.

Interactive Media Elitism

The mass media elite is slowly collapsing, as the individual cells (that is, us) that prop it up grow to broadcast our own points-of-view on the web, eroding their mass-media model.

Douglas Rushkoff says:

Projects like Wikipedia do not overthrow any elite at all, but merely replace one elite — in this case an academic one — with another: the interactive media elite...

Because our media IS interactive, our individual points-of-view can be collected and directed back at the mass media organs too - to meet them head-on and evoke a response.

I suggest that we start to do this first with our institutions: draw ourselves towards our government services first, to tie them closer to our community as we move forwards in this era of chaotic change.

Is Gov 2.0 Losing Steam ?

Andrea Di Maio talks about the 5 necessary truths about Gov 2.0 in this article.

Also included is this downbeat note:

Also, a recent Gartner survey of government clients’ priorities for 2011 indicated a drop in rank for Government 2.0. Many governments are struggling with fundamental sustainability issues because of the global financial crisis and sluggish recovery, and there is a concrete risk that Government 2.0 might be put on the back burner.

Is Ontario Privacy Commissioner Advocating Open Gov ?

Privacy. The internet.

Scared ?

Old media especially loves to scare us about privacy and the internet. I suspect this strategy keeps a certain type of person from abandoning their television and newspaper and joining the rest of us online where information is interactive, not just served up as product for consumption.

In this context, the title "Ontario's Privacy Commissioner" sounds like someone who can reach through the monitor and handcuff those evil Nigerian prince scammers, who threaten to cheat our parents out of our inheritances.

But Ann Cavoukian showed up on my radar this week for some statements she made recently. These weren't statements about protecting our privacy, but rather providing us with open data from our public institutions. Her document "Access By Design" "The 7 Fundamental Principles" was released in May:

"The demand for government services continually increases, while governments constantly face the need for cost reduction measures. By embracing Access by Design, public institutions can improve their information management practices by eliminating the inefficient process of “reactive” disclosure, and yet provide more streamlined access to public information. Further, citizen groups can also utilize public data to spot inefficiencies in, and improvements for, government services – increasing efficiency by reducing demand on government resources."

She seems to get it. New media has the potential to provide the fabled "third way" for our healthcare systems: publishing performance data so that costs and services provided are easily monitored. The downside to governments, though, is that there is no hiding from open data, and our current Ontario government hasn't distinguished itself as being a risk taker in this area.

But, still, it seems like something is going on. Check this excerpt from the Cornwall Standard Freeholder, ostensibly about new limits on hospital lobbying:

"It will provide access to hospitals' general records, including records relating to operational and financial functions," said Ontario's information and privacy commissioner, Dr. Ann Cavoukian, in a news release."

I used to say "stay tuned" at the end of these pieces, but maybe I should say "keep hitting F5".

Even Government 2.0 is Bigger in Texas !

Dustin Haisler is the assistant City Manager in Manor, Texas. In his article on GovFresh.com, he explains how he uses technology to:

• post information (town website,open data)
• collaborate (idea suggestion and brainstorming, discussion via social media)
• collect information from citizens(crime reporting, reporting of needed repairs)
• improve processes (publishing forms online)
• improve other areas (project management, operations management, record retention)
  
  None of these things is revolutionary, but just a matter of someone taking the time to do the little boring things that can add up to big successes.

Let's hope that Manor, Texas succeeds (as I think it will) and becomes a model for other governments to follow.

Online Voting Discussion

O'Reilly interviews CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen, on the topic of online voting.

As California resident Ryan Alfred observed during Bowen's conversation with Tim O'Reilly, open source voting platforms sound great in theory -- but can technology increase the percentage of citizens who vote?

I object to the implicit message that getting more people to vote is virtuous. The act of voting is only the final steps, in the duties of a civic-minded person to stay informed and participate in our processes. Why aren't we paying more attention to how we communicate issues, from government to the people, and from the people to each other ?

Part of the problem is likely that communication analysis isn't natural. People seem to think that the way they communicate is the way they always have communicated and that our changing media (even as they change before our eyes) don't have an effect on the message. McLuhan taught us differently, though.

Information has been reduced to bytes in all media. If you doubt me, see if you can watch a television newscast from 20 or 30 years ago, and notice how long and information-rich the stories appear to be. That's television. On the web, we actually pay for our information on a byte-by-byte basis so shorter is always better. O RLY ? Yes, really.

The electoral process is always changed by changing communication practices, but there are things we (and they) can do to promote deeper consideration of issues, more even discussion. Turning the voting process into another internet online poll is not one of these changes, however.

We should be approaching the problem as writer Jane Jacobs approached traffic problems in big cities: challenge all assumptions, and don't assume that the most volume of throughput is the best answer. One way streets, and speed bumps regulate traffic, and prevent neighbourhoods from becoming freeway scenery. Small obstacles to voting, such as having to physically walk a few blocks to do it, may represent a small control on the quality of the voter.

It seems counter-intuitive but more isn't always better. Sometimes better is better.