Pat

I noted your entry and thought I would go back and have a look at what Gov 2.0 is all about. Much of it has little to do with Web 2.0 in my opinion and indeed has something to do with the culture of disclosure or non-disclosure (depending on your point of view of course). I believe you have a very valid point but the issue goes beyond culture alone. So going back to those first principles, here are my comments against your terms of reference.

The Government 2.0 Taskforce (‘Taskforce’) will advise and assist the Government to:

1. make government information more accessible and usable — to establish a pro-disclosure culture around non-sensitive public sector information; The only thing that Web 2.0 adds to this is the “usable” part and perhaps the “accessible” part – but that is more in the context of “cheaply accessible”. Governments have always had the choice to make information available and accessible. Why they feel they need a “pro-disclosure culture” now should have nothing to do with Web 2.0.

2. make government more consultative, participatory and transparent — to maximise the extent to which government utilises the views, knowledge and resources of the general community; Again, this has always been possible. Web 2.0 should make it more efficient to do so.

3. build a culture of online innovation within Government — to ensure that government is receptive to the possibilities created by new collaborative technologies and uses them to advance its ambition to continually improve the way it operates; Now that is a valid aim perhaps directly related to Web 2.0. The issue is “innovation”. Governments have not often been innovative, which often involves risk of some sort. The difference in this case might be the push to make it happen regardless of the cost …only governments can really do that ….the NBN for instance.

4. promote collaboration across agencies with respect to online and information initiatives — to ensure that efficiencies, innovations, knowledge and enthusiasm are shared on a platform of open standards; and This is a BIG call and desire. There are at least two issues at play here a) Where is the platform(s) available? My experience is that government agencies tend to not know what is available to them internal to a department let alone in another department. It will require a significant amount of internal to government marketing. b) we are an aging population and the public service reflects that demographic. What is easy and familiar to a <30 year old is certainly not familiar to someone say 40+ in some instances. My experience is that many many public servants find it difficult to use the features of Microsoft Word properly, let alone to use a wiki, twitter (if they are allowed), forums etc. Some government departments don’t even permit WWW access!

5. identify and/or trial initiatives that may achieve or demonstrate how to accomplish the above objectives. Interesting. Where will they trial it and among who? I suspect they will only trial it among those that want to use it (hence they will seek volunteers)….not the ones who don’t …a sort of self fulfilling experiment that will provide a way improving what they do for those that want to use it ….but for those that don’t …what do they do? More of this below I hope.

The Taskforce will advise Government on structural barriers that prevent, and policies to promote, greater information disclosure, digital innovation and online engagement including the division of responsibilities for, and overall coordination of, these issues within government. This is a government cultural change that needs to occur. The public doesn’t need encouragement to have government become more open. I think some of this may have to do with governance.

The Taskforce will work with the public, private, cultural and not for profit sectors to fund and develop seed projects that demonstrate the potential of proactive information disclosure and digital engagement for government. More information can be found on the Taskforce’s Project Fund page. Not sure how the “public, private, etc sectors” can help “proactive information disclosure” ..I presume within government. The government has to do this with its policies and public servants. Those sectors can help with digital engagements though.

In particular the Taskforce will also identify policies and frameworks to assist the Information Commissioner and other agencies in:

1. developing and managing a whole of government information publication scheme to encourage greater disclosure of public sector information; Not related to Web 2.0 though!

2. extending opportunities for the reuse of government information, and considering the terms of that use, to maximise the beneficial flow of that information and facilitate productive applications of government information to the greatest possible extent; A few motherhoods here and laudable aims. It will mean “sharing” of information which I suspect in many cases would be problematic with privacy issues. But there are lots of bits of information that could be shared without those constraints …contracting, tendering, projects ….etc. So targeting what to share I think is the best start for this one.

3. encouraging effective online innovation, consultation and engagement by government, including by drawing on the lessons of the Government’s online consultation trials and any initiatives undertaken by the Taskforce. OK …”effective” is the operative word here.

There are three general challenges as I see it:

3. Using tools to share information or to collaborate is going to favour certain types of people …and that is perhaps the younger generation. Australian demographics say we are an aging population, so the likelihood of the older generation having unbalanced representation due to the lack of Web 2.0 skills is a real issue …the legislation will be slanted toward those that participate not those that DO NOT participate. I found this quote from Kate Lundy very interesting:

I think it is fair to say it represents the wisdom of the crowd that participated in this Public Sphere topic. This was quite a crowd too. In addition to the 35 speakers, there were 170 attendees, 400 watching the live video stream and over 1500 watching the live wall (Twitter, Flickr and liveblogging feeds). These people and others constituted 41 blog commenters, over 20 bloggers, 300 people tweeting and 22 wiki contributors.

It may have represented the wisdom of the crowd that participated …..but that is the actual point ….it represents those that participated….not those that did not (which is probably about 99.99999% of the population). I suspect this is how the “trials” will go too ….and everything will be positive no doubt because of it.

However…..having said all that …it has to happen and it has to start somewhere…..and this is a good start. I hope a lot of positives come from it.

Allow anyone to change data and add data as long as they obey a set of rules which can be defined for each data set – e.g. the changes must be true and legal and appropriate and the data is allowed to be changed. While it is difficult to define these things it is much easier to see if something is not true, legal and appropriate when we “see it”. Some data should never be changed.

To prevent mischief makers or saboteurs changing or inventing history all changes are logged and are available. Anyone can challenge an entry and a challenge removes the change until it is reviewed “by the crowd” and by the custodian of the data.

If a person persistently makes mischief they are banned from changing or adding to any data set for some period of time.

If a person makes changes that have legal penalties there is a method for them to be held accountable – perhaps simply by them removing their cloak of anonymity if they insist on the change being kept.

The technology is available to make the above possible.

I’m with you wholeheartedly. Seeing the various Estates (another outmoded concept) in the hyperconnected world we live in as separate is foolish in the extreme. We are all of the government, of the people, of the media and of leadership – to believe anything else these days is singularly blinkered.

As soon as out institutions – legislative government, the public sector and education in particular – realise this and begin to adapt and adopt, the better off we will be. Or indeed, here we will all come, ready to replace the old with the new.

We are all citizens and therefor we are all the government.

The notion of ‘the government’ as separate and distinct from ‘the people’ is at its root a method of siloing – to either transfer responsibility or blame.

The “government’s data” is the “people’s data”, the “government’s spending” is the “people’s spending” and the “government’s decisions” are the “people’s decisions”.

The concept of a citizen’s sole contribution to public policy being a vote every 3-4 years is already dead (though I think many people have not yet noticed).

With a combination of social and technological changes Gov 2.0 will reduce the artificial barriers we create between government departments and ‘the public’ (which includes public servants too).

This needs to be reflected in changes to how public servants, politicians AND other citizens are expected to behave – with appropriate checks and balances for those who choose to behave in ways at odds with the community’s expressed desires.

If we manage to transition our institutions and thinking successfully – and this is much more difficult and less well mapped terrain than a mere global recession – Australia will be incredibly successful throughout this century.

Nicely put.

It will be the motivated and connected – an ever-growing proportion of society in spite of the notion of the digital divide – who will engage with government this way, but we very much aren’t the product of any generation, rather we are the product of situation – needs, wants, desires, motivation.

What is the media’s role in this?

Well, if you’re philosophic ( I am) you might be viewing all this discussion about Web 2.0 as one that recognizes the change from broadcast to interactive media. OK, so the older people are used to viewing the 7 O’clock news and believing everything they see (NOT). Even my 80 something parents just laugh at the reports filed by 20 something’s attempt to fill the space between ads (even on the ABC).

That discussion we were having about an online ID (SSO) was just recognising that even PS, or even pollies are allowed just to be citizens. I continue to be confused by all this talk about “our government”. Is there such a thing? There;s just a bunch of people trying to do a job, and because of the lack of communication between the ‘inside’ and the ‘outside’, all we can do is have another inquiry after another stuff up.

It’s not even ( I believe) an ethic. It’s just that everyone watches too much TV, and believes it. I remember about 12 years ago when one policy maker was putting “to be interpreted liberally’ on his docs. But if you’ve never had a Liberal education, you’d never know what it meant. Thank God for wikipedia.