Posts Tagged ‘collaboration’

  • 25 Aug

    Posted by
    admin


    Category

    Transparency Camp West 2009 Part 2 Citability

    0

    See this post for an overview of TransparencyCamp. What follows here is a report on one session within TransparencyCamp, aka #tcamp09.

    Citability

    Well, to be accurate, the session was called “Architecting Solutions for Archiving and Citing Government Data.”

    Lead by Silona Bonewald and David Strauss, the idea here was to present and discuss what exactly is needed to create on-line citations of legislation that are reliable, authoritative and permanent. Think of it this way: we need a way to create hyperlinks directly to individual paragraphs within every piece of legislation which are as accurate as the citations used in legal documents for court proceedings.

    Court documents are precise (if they aren’t a judge will toss the lawyer out of court), but are decidedly not convenient. To check the accuracy of a citation, or to read the text being referenced, one has to either go find the book (access can be time-consuming or expensive or both), or search online sources (often PDF files) which can be equally expensive.

    The goal is to establish a standard method for creating paragraph-level citations of legislation, marked with date and time (because they sometimes change over time and we need to know what rule was in force at any point in time), that will be a permanent link (so your great-grandchildren can use the same link 30 years from now get the exact same material), and stable.

    1. Paragraph level citation
    2. Date and Time stamped
    3. Permanent & Stable

    Silona and David are part of an initiative called “The Citability Project,” or “Citability.org” which seeks to create open source standards to address these problems.

    One of the problems with online legislation as it exists today is that “Government websites are ever changing and cannot be cited. Content changes without notice or accountability.” That last word, accountability, is the latch-key to why the goal of Citability.org is so worthy. Transparency in government is as yet an ill-defined term in general, but what isn’t lacking about the term is the basic idea that transparency in government attaches accountability to whomever is responsible for something within government.

    Citability.org is working in an open, collaborative way to establish some principals of archiving for legislation, some functional technical solutions for paragraph level citing, some watchdog capabilities by using the Internet Archive, clonable server protocols and independent verification tools like digital signatures to verify sources and to establish full accountability.

    Check out their work at: http://www.citability.org and their wiki at: http://citability.pbworks.com/

    Post to Twitter

  • 15 Aug

    Posted by
    admin


    Category

    Transparency Camp West 2009

    0

    The non-profit organization Sunlight Foundation, together with Google, hosted “TransparencyCamp West 2009,” a two-day unconference on transparency in government, to convene…

      “a trans-partisan tribe of open government advocates from all walks — government representatives, technologists, developers, NGOs, wonks and activists — to share knowledge on how to use new technologies to make our government transparent and meaningfully accessible to the public.”

    blog_tcamp01

    “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants”
    – Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

    What is “transparency in government,” anyway? Here’s an outline as applied to federal government, but the ideals are relevant to state and local government as well.

    » Read the rest of the entry..

    Post to Twitter

  • 21 May

    Posted by
    admin


    Category

    American Idol 2.0

    0
    american idol

    American Idol 2.0

    Internet 2.0, Government 2.0, Web 2.0, Capitalism 2.0, Me 2.0…

    There are tons of conversations going on about 2.0 (by way of a quick background: it’s pronounced “two-point-oh,” as in Version 2.0, just in case).

    The big idea is that in version 2.0 of anything, the fundamental rules are different from before (version 1.0, of course). Largely, cooperation and collaboration are cornerstones of 2.0 philosophies.

    In Government 2.0, full transparency and massive collaboration are cultivated. In Internet 2.0, the audience creates the content and collaborates on entertainment. Capitalism 2.0 suggests the ideals of capitalism 1.0 have grown weary, and what this new century needs are an updated, sustainable, set of economic ideals.

    Let’s duck the thorny details of any one of these intentionally provocative generalizations for now. (Oh, there juicy, folks; so jump right in using the comments section below.)

    For now, though, let’s make some observations about a much weightier topic: the finale of American Idol.

    This year’s competition seemed qualitatively different from the previous ones:

    • The core group of finalists genuinely like each other.
    • They are interested in each other’s success.
    • They are willing to help each other.
    • They encourage and support each other.
    • … and all despite the competition.

    There has been plenty written about just how different the two finalists are (Kris and Adam) and yet, they each seem authentically excited about the other’s success. For crying out loud, we’re talking about a dramatic, gay man on the one hand and a religious missionary on the other. They have plenty of ideological cudgels easily at hand to start waling away at each other. Just imagine those two running against each other for a seat in congress, for example.

    This didn’t happen–quite the opposite, in fact. Here’s a question: Why?

    Define “Winning”

    They define winning in a different way from a traditional competition. The idea that there’s only one “winner” is just too narrow and inorganic to their overall interests. I’m not suggesting that a competitive energy didn’t play a significant role, but, despite the power of this “one winner” model to create drama for the show, the core group of finalists fundamentally do not buy into it.

    Collaborative Effort, Collective Benefit

    That core group of finalists clearly embodies the idea that if they collaborate, the general quality of the work (the entertainment value of their performances) rises. Producing a better product, regardless of who takes primary credit for that product, benefits the whole group.

    There is a goal at work here that transcends each individual’s goal of getting to the next level of the competition: producing good music. Serving the goal of producing artful music allows each contestant to contribute to a more meaningful purpose, which is more personally enriching than stark individual competition.

    Authentic Regard

    These competitors have a genuine regard for each other and an authentic vested interest in each other’s success. The big ideas of 2.0 philosophies are evolutionary, not revolutionary. These competitors did not, for example, take a stand on moral grounds and walk out of the competition or reject the concept of the competition out of hand.

    They took part, delivered what they had to offer within the structure of the competition, gave their best, but conspired together nonetheless to collaborate, encourage, help, support and praise each other, regardless of the four old-school judges sitting at the 1.0 table.

    Post to Twitter

  • 10 May

    Posted by
    admin


    Category

    Government 2.0 – What’s Next

    0

    The power of online mass collaboration–how will it impact governments?

    • What is next in governance and civil service?
    • How will governments of all sizes and jurisdictions evolve?
    • Are governments out of touch with the behaviors of their own constituents?
    • What is Government 2.0?

    If the world of social networking has wrested control of “brand experiences” from the companies who produce those brands, do you think the brand experience of the US Government, or the State of California, or a City Government, or a Water District public utility is also up for grabs?

    On Tuesday, May 12th, a new documentary film called “Us Now” will launch online. “Us Now” is a documentary about the power of mass collaboration, government and the internet.

    Want more clips? Click here for a boat load!

    Current and emerging internet technologies are firmly based on concepts of collaboration. As people become more adept at online collaboration, and as we expand our habits of collaboration, what happens to governments that are bogged down in older forms of bureaucracy, especially top-down hierarchies?

    From the “Us Now” blog:

    The online launch of Us Now on the 12th of May will be marked by an event with Richard Sennett and Tom Watson MP in the UK and a simultaneous event at The Kennedy School of Government, Harvard.  The events, coordinated by FutureGov, will be broadcast live online, please visit this site on the day for further details. From the 12th of May onwards the full film will be available to stream from this website.

    I think these issues are relevant and urgent. The Obama campaign used some of these emerging technologies to great effect, and the Obama White House is expanding government transparency and collaboration tthrough online tools.

    However, are state and local governments learning? How can we contribute to our communities in meaningful ways using these tools?

    Post to Twitter