The Government has now responded to the Government 2.0 Taskforce's report. As such, comments are now closed but you are encouraged to continue the conversation at agimo.govspace.gov.au

Comments by

ben rogers

PROJECT PROPOSALS, paragraph 8

I think a better way to approach this project – as Matthew and James have already stated would be to ask departments what information the public requests the most – rather then what departments might think is valuable to make publicly available.

go to thread »
Posted August 19, 2009  8:21 am
PROJECT PROPOSALS, paragraph 3

I have to agree with those that have already mentioned talking to the people that are trying to do this stuff – the business areas that have been stifled at every step trying to get something innovative done in this space. I am sure we could all identify at least one project in our respective agencies that this has happened to.

go to thread »
Posted August 19, 2009  8:17 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [final], paragraph 23

I concur with yvonne – get out there – fail early and fail often – and people will respect you more, then hiding behind a faux wall of omnipotence. The role of the opposition will change, becoming more useful – as it will be able to have greater say in policy development through collaborative efforts and input rather then us vs them – which question time seems to typify in all the worst ways

go to thread »
Posted August 15, 2009  3:11 pm
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [final], paragraph 12

I think making govt information more accessible is an essential first step in moving toward gov2.0 – it will allow third parties to publish in easy to access ways the end products of govt policies – making it much easier to organise people to support/ advocate about issues – the data needs to be access via standard web/tech protocols and not locked up in reports – which provide a barrier to access in terms of republishing data.

go to thread »
Posted August 15, 2009  3:05 pm
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [final], paragraph 85

think there needs to be a recognition that some information would need to be digitised as well

go to thread »
Posted August 9, 2009  6:34 pm
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [final], paragraph 76

I would say in answer to this question that when information provided for policy formulation by a department contradicts the govt’s policy decision that there is pressure on the APS to keep such information private.

go to thread »
Posted August 9, 2009  5:01 pm
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [final], paragraph 68

Hasn’t cost recovery as a concern been soundly debunked because of the economic benefits to the community at large? how is it possible to quibble of a few 10 of thousands of dollars to make data available when the potential benefits to the overall economy have been shown by the UK and US to be in the 10 of millions and more?

go to thread »
Posted August 9, 2009  4:57 pm
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 36

wondering if we there needs to be some acknowledgement of the three levels of govt here – as this is going to be a major hurdle in adoption of collection practices outlined

go to thread »
Posted July 20, 2009  8:03 pm
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 23

also – does there need to be a distinction between the APS and how it engages and the elected representatives?

go to thread »
Posted July 20, 2009  7:57 pm
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 20

another point – is there govt information that shouldn’t be made available… does this need stating?

go to thread »
Posted July 20, 2009  7:55 pm
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 19

within government sounds ambiguous to me… do you mean by govt- or sharing between govts?

go to thread »
Posted July 20, 2009  7:54 pm
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 11

I think this paragraph has the balance about right… but perhaps there should some emphasis on the role of web2 serving to enhance existing consultation processes rather then inventing new ones. The transparency and openness stuff will take longer and is more threatening -gathering feedback is already done.

go to thread »
Posted July 20, 2009  7:23 pm