Deepr cuts = Bigger bonuses

[Shwa]

Plus, there's the faceless dehumanizing machine that is the bureaucracy.

An interesting turn of phrase for one who advocates for "open government." What has happened over the past 20 years is the movement of government services to the electronic medium and the reduction of in-person 'face-to-face' locations for all kinds of services.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Shwa

[Michael Hardner]

An interesting turn of phrase for one who advocates for "open government."

Open Government should eventually reduce bureaucracy. More openness means less secrecy...

[Shwa]

Open Government should eventually reduce bureaucracy.

State your case.

More openness means less secrecy...

No it doesn't. "Secret" is a designation of information sensitivity and no matter how "open" the government is, you won't be seeing secret information unless you are a senior bureuacrat or government official with a need to know.

Other senstive levels of information will not be put out on the Internet and how that information is designated is, by and large, a matter of politics or political expediency.

Any other lowly classified or unclassified information is already available from every single government department and agency through the Access to Information and Privacy Act.

[Michael Hardner]

State your case.

Bureaucracy (from Wiki) is meant to implement the actions of a democracy in achieving its goals.

Open Government would harmonize the goals of a department so that they are aligned with what the people need from that department: this would be done simply by listing services, service levels and costs.

Currently, there are a myriad of goals that are hidden from the public. These are priorities set by the politicians at the top of the pyramid. Such priorities change frequently, at least with every change of government, and cause churn and a drag on efficiency. Aligning the department priorities with those of the citizen would mitigate these changes, and focus the department on what they're supposed to be doing.

Also, there shouldn't be excessive effort in reporting services, service levels and costs since the data already exists. It doesn't have to be created, or collected - just publicized.

No it doesn't. "Secret" is a designation of information sensitivity and no matter how "open" the government is, you won't be seeing secret information unless you are a senior bureuacrat or government official with a need to know.

But currently it seems that operational data is secret, and this would no longer be the case.

Any other lowly classified or unclassified information is already available from every single government department and agency through the Access to Information and Privacy Act.

Available how ? Through freedom of information ? Can somebody show me an online report of 9-11 response time in Toronto ? If it's not available, then it's effectively a secret - whether or not one could theoretically obtain it from an FOI filing.

[Shwa]

Bureaucracy (from Wiki) is meant to implement the actions of a democracy in achieving its goals.

I can agree to that. A little simplistic, but sure.

Open Government would harmonize the goals of a department so that they are aligned with what the people need from that department: this would be done simply by listing services, service levels and costs.

This is already done with the federal government, more or less, to a practical degree.

Currently, there are a myriad of goals that are hidden from the public. These are priorities set by the politicians at the top of the pyramid. Such priorities change frequently, at least with every change of government, and cause churn and a drag on efficiency. Aligning the department priorities with those of the citizen would mitigate these changes, and focus the department on what they're supposed to be doing.

This isn't open government in the electronic sense, it is a de-politicized bureaucracy correct? That will never happen in our lifetime.

Also, there shouldn't be excessive effort in reporting services, service levels and costs since the data already exists. It doesn't have to be created, or collected - just publicized.

Does the data already exist though? How familiar are you with a working government?

But currently it seems that operational data is secret, and this would no longer be the case.

Some operational data could be secret, or on a need to know basis. For example, data that could be used for insider-trading or contravene trade secrets. Would you be willing to expose this sort of information to the public?

Available how ? Through freedom of information ? Can somebody show me an online report of 9-11 response time in Toronto ? If it's not available, then it's effectively a secret - whether or not one could theoretically obtain it from an FOI filing.

How about you show us the failed or denied access to information request first. Obviously, you believe it exists and, not being secret, should be available. At this point ATI is the current method of accessing such data.

[Michael Hardner]

This is already done with the federal government, more or less, to a practical degree.

Your evaluation, like mine, is subjective. I submit that the people are largely not aware of the goals, results, and resources used by departments. Do you disagree ? If so, then the next step is for us to determine how we would determine what 'largely aware' means.

This isn't open government in the electronic sense, it is a de-politicized bureaucracy correct? That will never happen in our lifetime.

There will always be politicians of course, however the degree to which politics impedes our information gathering and decision making is indeed within our control.

Does the data already exist though? How familiar are you with a working government?

I worked for the federal government for several years as a student, in information systems. There were (and I suspect) are more reports than the managers could possibly absorb. The types of information I'm looking for are basic: services and service levels and costs. These should be available in any endeavour that is even moderately well organized.

Some operational data could be secret, or on a need to know basis. For example, data that could be used for insider-trading or contravene trade secrets. Would you be willing to expose this sort of information to the public?

There will be secrets, but I can't think of information that fits my description above that would constitute trade secret or insider trading.

How about you show us the failed or denied access to information request first. Obviously, you believe it exists and, not being secret, should be available. At this point ATI is the current method of accessing such data.

An FOI request shouldn't be required to obtain this kind of information, though. That means that the information is currently kept secret.

In trying to find information from government websites, the first obstacle you get is one of basic usability. That's the first barrier to Open Government: the information may be there but you have to dig deep to find it.

I went to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada to find performance statistics. I ended up on the audit page, and clicked here:

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/aiarch/arp/aev/pubs/au/pyr/pyr-eng.asp#sum

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

The table below summarizes the findings and recommendations contained in the report, in the order in which they appear.

Findings Recommendations

(1) No consistent, documented process, accounting procedures, service agreements and control framework for payroll (i.e. no Departmental Pay Administration Model). Payroll control variations and weaknesses exist across regions examined, including Financial Administration Act (FAA) control gaps. Appropriate service agreements with other organizations involved in INAC's payroll have not been established. (1) INAC's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Director General (DG) of Human Resources and Workplace Services Branch (HRWSB) should implement a consistent pay administration process across the Department and establish documented agreements, outlining roles, responsibilities and applicable payment terms with each separate organization involved in the Department's payroll process.

(2) Overstatement of roughly $700K in Yukon region's 2009-10 financial statements provided to headquarters for year-end reporting. Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency (CanNor) employees were inappropriately included in the salaries and benefits expense for INAC's Yukon region. (2) INAC's CFO should implement controls to enforce appropriate salary reporting for separate operating agencies and validate that financial statements exclude CanNor from the Department's salaries and benefits expense. INAC should formalize service agreements with separate operating agencies and should reconcile actual transactions against salary figures reported in all regions to prevent similar discrepancies.

(3) Insufficient controls to support the accuracy of pay. In particular:

No evidence of regional detailed reconciliation between actual payroll transactions and the salaries and benefits reported in the financial system

Lack of evidence to demonstrate sufficient RPS access controls

Insufficient evidence to demonstrate appropriate s.33 segregation of duties and due diligence

Lack of audit evidence retained for s.33 and s.34 execution

(3) In conjunction with Recommendation 1, INAC's CFO and DG of HRWSB should work together to address payroll control gaps by conducting and retaining evidence of the following:

Performing reconciliation between actual transactions and salaries reported for all regions

Establishing a complete list of RPS users and formalizing a process for regularly reviewing and approving RPS access privileges

Enforcing segregation of duties between FAA s.33 and s.34 execution and maintain s.33 and s.34 evidence in all regions

Identifying and addressing root causes of high payroll exception rates, particularly with respect to special employee groups, such as students and Casuals

(4) High rate of exceptions in pay transactions. Exceptions included calculation errors and non-compliance with Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat policies, directives, collective agreements, Departmental policies, and the FAA.

(5) High exception rate (70%) observed for 14 extra duty payments tested. In particular, we found:

Extra duty pay with no evidence of appropriate entitlement, particularly for employees on compressed work schedules.

Inadequate management review and monitoring of extra duty transactions.

Ineffective key controls governing extra duty transactions.

Lack of a complete view of overtime hours worked to support extra duty monitoring and staffing decisions.

(4) INAC's DG of HRWSB should work with the CFO to investigate current compensation practices for extra duty in each region and enforce applicable policies. Particular focus should be placed on employees on compressed work schedules. As well, extra duty hours (not just extra duty expenditure dollars) should be tracked to allow INAC management to effectively monitor overtime.

(6) INAC is not ready for the GCPI implementation due to:

6.1 Inconsistent pay data across relevant systems.

6.2 Lack of PeopleSoft preparedness. Specifically, inadequate data clean-up strategy and a lack of preventive controls, including documented workflows and training.

6.3 Gaps in the plan for a post-GCPI payroll process and RPS access restrictions.

6.4 No evidence to demonstrate how risks will be effectively managed under current project timeline.

6.5 Lack of project communication and collaboration across business units.

There's a long way to go, obviously, and these things couldn't be fixed within a year, or even five years.

[Shwa]

Your evaluation, like mine, is subjective. I submit that the people are largely not aware of the goals, results, and resources used by departments. Do you disagree ? If so, then the next step is for us to determine how we would determine what 'largely aware' means.

The government websites are pretty informative, wouldn't you agree? To making people aware of the goals, results and resources of their particular portfolio I mean. It's public. For certain awareness issues, the government spends money of advertising campaigns, but how far do you go? Eventually, the awareness should be the responsibility of the people themselves.

There will always be politicians of course, however the degree to which politics impedes our information gathering and decision making is indeed within our control.

Hence, ATIP. But ATIP has to answer to someone, even the Auditor General does. But I am not talking about strictly the democratic politics of government, I am talking the internal career politics of bureaucrats as well, including the Privacy Commissioners office or the office of the Auditor General.

I worked for the federal government for several years as a student, in information systems. There were (and I suspect) are more reports than the managers could possibly absorb. The types of information I'm looking for are basic: services and service levels and costs. These should be available in any endeavour that is even moderately well organized.

Well, for one, I doubt a couple years as a student in a records office would qualify you to generalize about the informational ability of the rest of the bureaucracy, even though I suspect you might be right. Secondly, services, service levels and costs are available through canada.gc.ca or through ATIP.

There will be secrets, but I can't think of information that fits my description above that would constitute trade secret or insider trading.

No, but the point is that someone has to think about the information and whether it fits the definition of secret, protected, classified, etc.

An FOI request shouldn't be required to obtain this kind of information, though. That means that the information is currently kept secret.

That information requires an ATIP request does not equate to it being kept secret. Come one now, drop that one.

However, in some cases - likely a large part of them - ATIP requests of your type require some sort of analysis and may require the gathering of data from several sources. I can tell you - well, at last look - the Federal Government simple does not have the technical resources available to put everything on-line.

In trying to find information from government websites, the first obstacle you get is one of basic usability. That's the first barrier to Open Government: the information may be there but you have to dig deep to find it.

And now, not just usability - accessibility, proper language, proper format, etc. Yep, you have to dig deep which might be an incentive to reward those who are actually serious about the issue.

I went to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada to find performance statistics. I ended up on the audit page, and clicked here:

There's a long way to go, obviously, and these things couldn't be fixed within a year, or even five years.

And in an economic downturn, even longer. Although with Shared Services Canada, the consolidation of Federal Government datacentres might be able to offer a nice side benefit for information access to the public. But that only concerns electronic data that isn't personal.

[wyly]

guyser, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't personally attack me by insinuating I am a child

the insult was uncalled for but your blaming unions for common human behaviour was naive, typical of someone very young and inexperienced or old and ignorant...

[Michael Hardner]

The government websites are pretty informative, wouldn't you agree? To making people aware of the goals, results and resources of their particular portfolio I mean. It's public. For certain awareness issues, the government spends money of advertising campaigns, but how far do you go? Eventually, the awareness should be the responsibility of the people themselves.

Depending on how you define 'informative'. They have information, yes, but they have poor usability so the information doesn't get to the intended targets.

I agree that awareness should be the responsibility of the people themselves. I would say MLW users are likely representative of the types of people who should be well familiar with this information, and I don't think that's the case.

Also, I disagree with using advertising to the degree that it's used.

Hence, ATIP. But ATIP has to answer to someone, even the Auditor General does. But I am not talking about strictly the democratic politics of government, I am talking the internal career politics of bureaucrats as well, including the Privacy Commissioners office or the office of the Auditor General.

Are you referring to the Access to Information and Privacy act ?

That isn't accessible enough, from what I've seen.

Well, for one, I doubt a couple years as a student in a records office would qualify you to generalize about the informational ability of the rest of the bureaucracy, even though I suspect you might be right. Secondly, services, service levels and costs are available through canada.gc.ca or through ATIP.

I wasn't in a records office, I was in IT and we were charged with generating reports for the ministry.

See my question above about ATIP.

No, but the point is that someone has to think about the information and whether it fits the definition of secret, protected, classified, etc.

Yes, this is one of the startup costs.

That information requires an ATIP request does not equate to it being kept secret. Come one now, drop that one.

However, in some cases - likely a large part of them - ATIP requests of your type require some sort of analysis and may require the gathering of data from several sources. I can tell you - well, at last look - the Federal Government simple does not have the technical resources available to put everything on-line.

1. Ok - let's say we're arguing semantics. I would say 'secret' means it's not information that's easily accessible to the public. If I have to file an FOI request to get it, then it's secret in my books. I suppose that you have a more stringent definition, which is more than fair so let's agree to disagree.

2. The government doesn't have resources to do things that it doesn't want to do, and it has resources to do what it wants to do.

And now, not just usability - accessibility, proper language, proper format, etc. Yep, you have to dig deep which might be an incentive to reward those who are actually serious about the issue.

The deputy minister can make it rain if he/she wants to, I'm sure.

And in an economic downturn, even longer. Although with Shared Services Canada, the consolidation of Federal Government datacentres might be able to offer a nice side benefit for information access to the public. But that only concerns electronic data that isn't personal.

Once again: services offered, service levels and costs.

[Shwa]

Depending on how you define 'informative'. They have information, yes, but they have poor usability so the information doesn't get to the intended targets.

I agree that awareness should be the responsibility of the people themselves. I would say MLW users are likely representative of the types of people who should be well familiar with this information, and I don't think that's the case.

Also, I disagree with using advertising to the degree that it's used.

Their websites are decent enough and I don't have a problem using them. Now that they seem to be coordinating content, the usability factor should improve.

Are you referring to the Access to Information and Privacy act ?

That isn't accessible enough, from what I've seen.

Depends on what you want. Some departments will give you the information informally. Others will refer you to their publications departments. Sometimes you might have to go to their library or get their materials through inter-library loan. Archival material works this way, but you might have to visit the National Archives to access some data.

It's still old school, but most of it you can see. If you have the will to do so.

I wasn't in a records office, I was in IT and we were charged with generating reports for the ministry.

See my question above about ATIP.

At any rate, those reports hit a records office and if you know what you want, you can access it. Providing it is classified to be public...

Yes, this is one of the startup costs.

Well that is a large resource isn't it? And the more requests, the more people to vet them. I agree that vast amounts of information could be dumped on the internet with little or no negative effect. But I am sure that even you would want to know the risks of doing so.

1. Ok - let's say we're arguing semantics. I would say 'secret' means it's not information that's easily accessible to the public. If I have to file an FOI request to get it, then it's secret in my books. I suppose that you have a more stringent definition, which is more than fair so let's agree to disagree.

It isn't a matter of semantics, is is a matter of precise definition when referring to information held by the Government of Canada.

2. The government doesn't have resources to do things that it doesn't want to do, and it has resources to do what it wants to do.

Sure, but consolidating data centres, revamping communications infrastructure (and increasing it in rural and northern areas), etc., takes time and resources. I think the Feds are already working towards this.

The deputy minister can make it rain if he/she wants to, I'm sure.

Not really.

Once again: services offered, service levels and costs.

Once again: its all there if you look and seriously want it.

[Michael Hardner]

I think we have to disagree on the major points at this time.

Their websites are decent enough and I don't have a problem using them. Now that they seem to be coordinating content, the usability factor should improve.

1. Completely disagree. You should be able to go to one place to get easy to understand summary information, for which you can drill down.

Depends on what you want. Some departments will give you the information informally. Others will refer you to their publications departments. Sometimes you might have to go to their library or get their materials through inter-library loan. Archival material works this way, but you might have to visit the National Archives to access some data.

It's still old school, but most of it you can see. If you have the will to do so.

At any rate, those reports hit a records office and if you know what you want, you can access it. Providing it is classified to be public...

2. The government should make this data easily viewable and understandable, not through requests. That's asking too much, and it is anything but "open".

Not really.

3. If these things were a priority for the government, then the deputy minister could prioritize it and make it happen. I know that they have called in resources over a weekend to investigate issues that have appeared in weekend papers... they can make things happen if they want to.

Once again: its all there if you look and seriously want it.

I could spend hours finding and cataloguing where it all is, but it's not my job to make public information accessible to people - it's the government's job.

[Bob]

I can't believe that there is someone actually asserting that government information is easily accessible online. It is labyrinthian by design, and extremely difficult to find information regarding costs and results. There is no question in any reasonable person's mind that the government, intentionally, makes their operations anything but transparent.

[Shwa]

I think we have to disagree on the major points at this time.

1. Completely disagree. You should be able to go to one place to get easy to understand summary information, for which you can drill down.

But this refers to structure, not the actual availability of the information. Your preference is for a drill down. Others prefer a search engine; others still prefer a flat structure. But I would hazard a guess that, should you require the information - for work or study - that the present structure would be easy enough to learn.

2. The government should make this data easily viewable and understandable, not through requests. That's asking too much, and it is anything but "open".

I think for the most part, that which can be on-line in a cost effective way, is. The Federal Government still uses a heck of a lot of paper and converting it costs money. This is why you pay for ATIP information. User fees.

3. If these things were a priority for the government, then the deputy minister could prioritize it and make it happen. I know that they have called in resources over a weekend to investigate issues that have appeared in weekend papers... they can make things happen if they want to.

Come on now Michael, Open Gov policy is not like calling people into the office for a weekend.

Open Government

I could spend hours finding and cataloguing where it all is, but it's not my job to make public information accessible to people - it's the government's job.

The information is accessible. (well for the most part, once they finish all the accessiblity modifications). All you are complaining about is method and, as I have said already, the infrastructure doesn't yet exist to put everything possible on-line. I don't foresee a significant change in this for at least 5-10 years. You will still have to access information through various formats and mediums.

[Michael Hardner]

But this refers to structure, not the actual availability of the information. Your preference is for a drill down. Others prefer a search engine; others still prefer a flat structure. But I would hazard a guess that, should you require the information - for work or study - that the present structure would be easy enough to learn.

It's not good enough.

The usability is poor, and it expects too much from the user. If you want to think of the ideal model of usability for the average citizen, think of the paper ballot you receive at the voting booth. Of course, that's an unattainable level of simplicity for the web, but it's instructive: the same people who vote should be able to easily view government information online.

I think for the most part, that which can be on-line in a cost effective way, is. The Federal Government still uses a heck of a lot of paper and converting it costs money. This is why you pay for ATIP information. User fees.

See my point above.

Come on now Michael, Open Gov policy is not like calling people into the office for a weekend.

Open Government

No, but we were talking about whether the Deputy Minister can make things happen: if they can get the staff to come in on the weekend to investigate a story, they can use their resources to improve usability for the public.

The information is accessible. (well for the most part, once they finish all the accessiblity modifications). All you are complaining about is method and, as I have said already, the infrastructure doesn't yet exist to put everything possible on-line. I don't foresee a significant change in this for at least 5-10 years. You will still have to access information through various formats and mediums.

I'm complaining about usability.

While the example below is far from perfect, it shows a better model - in this example for tracking government lobbyists.

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/outside-spending/

Furthermore, I forgot about something: the government doesn't even have to create the websites - only to publish the data that they already have in XML format. Citizen groups can and will publish the data in web format.

[bush_cheney2004]

....While the example below is far from perfect, it shows a better model - in this example for tracking government lobbyists.

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/outside-spending/

Your example is from the United States...not Canada. Different laws, different resources...different.

[Shwa]

It's not good enough.

The usability is poor, and it expects too much from the user. If you want to think of the ideal model of usability for the average citizen, think of the paper ballot you receive at the voting booth. Of course, that's an unattainable level of simplicity for the web, but it's instructive: the same people who vote should be able to easily view government information online.

And they can, but not according to your tastes. So who determines which 'taste' is more appropriate or preferred? I think web standards do, but God help us if they put it in wiki format.

No, but we were talking about whether the Deputy Minister can make things happen: if they can get the staff to come in on the weekend to investigate a story, they can use their resources to improve usability for the public.

Some DM's make act like petty emperors, but in realith they are not. I would think that any "government" initiative like Open Gov would require a coordination of all departments heads and executives. Something the Federal Government hasn't - and doesn't - do very well. I suppose one or two DMs could strike out on their own - and risk the wrath of Treasury Board - but it wouldn't address the "government" part of Open Gov...

I'm complaining about usability.

While the example below is far from perfect, it shows a better model - in this example for tracking government lobbyists.

Sure, but how unified is that model over the entirety of the US Government? Or how is any model currently in use in the world, comprehensively deployed in any government. You can cherry pick, but it doesn't address the real issue of the total meaning of the word "government."

Furthermore, I forgot about something: the government doesn't even have to create the websites - only to publish the data that they already have in XML format. Citizen groups can and will publish the data in web format.

I am fairly certain that XML formatted data that can be published, is already published. But XML is a fairly recent format and doesn't address the data contained in diverse proprietary database formats, paper data, media data, etc. Heck, some departments are still throwing coal into the Cobol furnance at HQ. XML is the least of their worries...

Edited October 13, 2011 by Shwa

[Michael Hardner]

Your example is from the United States...not Canada. Different laws, different resources...different.

Same usability standards.

[Michael Hardner]

And they can, but not according to your tastes. So who determines which 'taste' is more appropriate or preferred? I think web standards do, but God help us if they put it in wiki format.

It's not my taste - it's a question of design standards.

Some DM's make act like petty emperors, but in realith they are not. I would think that any "government" initiative like Open Gov would require a coordination of all departments heads and executives. Something the Federal Government hasn't - and doesn't - do very well. I suppose one or two DMs could strike out on their own - and risk the wrath of Treasury Board - but it wouldn't address the "government" part of Open Gov...

Yes and no. The problem that the US is having is that tackling the whole thing is too big a bite. It's somewhat better to do a bunch of small projects and hopefully let it snowball.

Sure, but how unified is that model over the entirety of the US Government? Or how is any model currently in use in the world, comprehensively deployed in any government. You can cherry pick, but it doesn't address the real issue of the total meaning of the word "government."

I meant a better model of usability. It's clearer, simpler and easier to read and understand.

I am fairly certain that XML formatted data that can be published, is already published. But XML is a fairly recent format and doesn't address the data contained in diverse proprietary database formats, paper data, media data, etc. Heck, some departments are still throwing coal into the Cobol furnance at HQ. XML is the least of their worries...

Recent ? I was coding in it 12 years ago !

They need to unleash the data to stop the enterprise folks from bogging things down and charging excessive $ - IT wise.

[Shwa]

It's not my taste - it's a question of design standards.

What "design standards?" They change so often, what standard are you currently working on? Here is what the GoC is working on: Common Look and Feel for the Internet 2.0

Yes and no. The problem that the US is having is that tackling the whole thing is too big a bite. It's somewhat better to do a bunch of small projects and hopefully let it snowball.

Economy of scale. Doing a bunch of separate and small projects can quickly balloon overall program costs especially when dealing with multi-billion dollar communincations infrastructure upgrades. Not to mention duplication of effort, projects off the beaten path, etc.

(I have actually seen this phenomenon with the Active Directory designs, re-designs, re-issues, tweaks, etc. of several Federal departments. The costs of even one department's efforts would make you ill)

I meant a better model of usability. It's clearer, simpler and easier to read and understand.

The link to GoC 2.0 is up above. Check it out and let me know what you disagree with.

Recent ? I was coding in it 12 years ago !

That is still fairly recent in government's terms. There are plenty of Federal workstations using Windows XP, Lotus Notes, old IBM mainframes spewing out Cobol...

They need to unleash the data to stop the enterprise folks from bogging things down and charging excessive $ - IT wise.

I couldn't agree more. I think Shared Services Canada partially addresses that, by treating the entire GoC as one enterprise instead of dozens of little IT empires.

[Michael Hardner]

What "design standards?" They change so often, what standard are you currently working on? Here is what the GoC is working on: Common Look and Feel for the Internet 2.0

Yes, they change often and require a dynamic organization to be able to keep up to date.

Economy of scale. Doing a bunch of separate and small projects can quickly balloon overall program costs especially when dealing with multi-billion dollar communincations infrastructure upgrades. Not to mention duplication of effort, projects off the beaten path, etc.

Of course. The government is a top-down organization that doesn't lend itself well to large projects, though so the choice may be between duplicate costs versus doing nothing at all.

(I have actually seen this phenomenon with the Active Directory designs, re-designs, re-issues, tweaks, etc. of several Federal departments. The costs of even one department's efforts would make you ill)

Undoubtedly. A new way must be found.

The link to GoC 2.0 is up above. Check it out and let me know what you disagree with.

From what I read, the specification as it is could produce anything from a usable website to an unusable website. You can't write a spec that will guarantee a usable website, it's about the process and the environment in which planning and development happens.

That is still fairly recent in government's terms. There are plenty of Federal workstations using Windows XP, Lotus Notes, old IBM mainframes spewing out Cobol...

The government can't keep up then, as it is currently structured.

[eyeball]

...cream rises to the top...

So does scum.