Progress Report on Open Government - Falling Behind on OGP ?

[Michael Hardner]

Teresa Scassa on OGP Progress:

http://www.teresascassa.ca/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=151:canada%E2%80%99s-progress-on-open-government-ogp-report-open-for-comments&Itemid=81

As I have described before, Open Data is taking precedence over open access and open participation. Open Data fits more easily into the government's current role of providing services, it seems to me.

A further concern is that the broad commitment to open government has been channelled primarily into developments around open data. While open data is important, and while developments in this area have been meaningful, open access and open participation are crucial components of open government and are essential to realizing its objectives. Indeed, one of the recommendations in the review document relates to the need for the government to broaden its focus so as to give more attention to open access and participation.

[Michael Hardner]

Less than a week later, and we get this:

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/4362843-kitchener-group-aiming-to-mine-open-data-gets-3-million-in-federal-budget/

KITCHENER — A local group of technology companies and organizations received $3 million in the federal budget Tuesday to establish the Open Data Institute.[/size]

The money will be provided over three years to get large amounts of data from the public and private sectors into a standard format that can be mined for new insights and innovations leading to new products and companies.

"We have this access to this big data. Now how can we help startups and other companies take advantage of this resource to build businesses?" Klugman said.

Again, what is being missed here ? It is that the government is clearly seeing itself as the owner of the data, to be released and cultivated by its children into fields of low hanging digital fruit, to provide jobs for all, etc etc etc.

But the government doesn't own the data to be given away, we do. So they shouldn't get to decide how it's used - we should have to tell them how to use it. And the best way to use it is the way that terrifies government the most today: to force them to share the data that they use, not the excess garbage data that they toss to the commoners.

But in order for such an approach to work, we have to care enough to demand it. And we have to have publics ready to do something with the data. For example, CIHI (Canadian Institute for Health Information) released a stat today that isn't being talked about anywhere with any interest:

One in ten ER patients waits more than 27 hours for a hospital bed:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/canadas-ers-missing-mark-on-waiting-times-new-statistics-reveal/article16866187/

Let's not delve into the details of that example, but instead imagine if people actually cared about such details in a significant way, whatever the details are. Imagine if they cared about costs too, and results of programs and projects, and had the means to follow up.

Or better yet, imagine there was some subgroup of citizens - a public - that was interested enough to monitor and ask questions about each area of interest, and they could raise flags if there were significant problems in their area.

[eyeball]

Again, what is being missed here ?

It's way too little, way too late and nobody believes a word of it?

Let's not delve into the details of that example, but instead imagine if people actually cared about such details in a significant way, whatever the details are. Imagine if they cared about costs too, and results of programs and projects, and had the means to follow up.

Well, if they did the government would set up all sorts of little well-intentioned processes and committees and such populated with a mix of concerned citizens, NGO's and it's own appointed minions and do it's level best to steer the thing in circles and eventually off a cliff once the furor died down.

The means to follow up implies a degree of actual control and authority that just isn't going to happen, not anywhere that really matters or will make a real difference anyway.

Or better yet, imagine there was some subgroup of citizens - a public - that was interested enough to monitor and ask questions about each area of interest, and they could raise flags if there were significant problems in their area.

Just wire the damn government for video and audio and let everyone monitor it.

[Michael Hardner]

It's way too little, way too late and nobody believes a word of it?

No, that was a rhetorical question which I immediately answered myself: they're releasing data for "apps" rather than monitoring data.

Well, if they did the government would set up all sorts of little well-intentioned processes and committees and such populated with a mix of concerned citizens, NGO's and it's own appointed minions and do it's level best to steer the thing in circles and eventually off a cliff once the furor died down.

"Once the furor died down" assumes the media audience is structured as it is today, and that's not what I'm talking about. That shouldn't happen with a public dedicated to an area of concern, such as environment.

[eyeball]

Dedicated public? You mean the burned out jaded public. I know and hundreds and hundreds of people who were very dedicated to everything you're talking about here and why and even how in a lot of ways especially in terms of information gathering using GIS etc,

The only one's still at it are being paid to be dedicated, most were NGO's who replaced government minions that retired or moved on, a few even became politicians. The furor died, the public went diaspora and the means to "follow up" seems even farther away than it was.

[eyeball]

Here's an excellent quote that I think nicely captures the general sense of the public regarding accountability, openness and transparency in governance, it certainly captures mine.

Please accuse my flippancy, but there is just too much noise in this field. It's hard to tell the charlatans from those who could potentially offer good advice.

[Michael Hardner]

You keep talking about "the" public, but I'm talking about "a" public.

Why would 30 million people give a whit about fishing licensing processes on the west coast ? Maybe they should but they wouldn't and they don't. The answer to that problem is to adapt, not to walk away or hope for futuristic monitoring devices.

We can adapt by connecting the concerned parties with the powers that be, and managing the process so that it's clear, open and designed for continuous monitoring and review. If it fails, then that should be the event that is called to national attention.

[eyeball]

We're talking about communities of governed people. Just like the communities that 30 million other Canadians live in.

Why would 30 million people give a whit about fishing licensing processes on the west coast ? Maybe they should but they wouldn't and they don't. The answer to that problem is to adapt, not to walk away or hope for futuristic monitoring devices.

Adapt...a sizable number of people I know have simply died of old age since starting down the path to transparency. They never made it

We can adapt by connecting the concerned parties with the powers that be, and managing the process so that it's clear, open and designed for continuous monitoring and review. If it fails, then that should be the event that is called to national attention.

We did call it to the attention of the nation...a nation of crickets apparently. Maybe if we blew up government buildings instead of just occupying them...Oh well, I'm betting "a" public that's more adaptable will figure that out, maybe not in my lifetime but probably in the not so distant future.

[Michael Hardner]

We're talking about communities of governed people. Just like the communities that 30 million other Canadians live in.

Yes, exactly. Setting up those communities to be accountable within their roles takes attention.

Adapt...a sizable number of people I know have simply died of old age since starting down the path to transparency. They never made it

If you're saying that things aren't happening fast enough, I find that odd owing to the fact that your suggestion would take forever to implement.

We did call it to the attention of the nation...a nation of crickets apparently. Maybe if we blew up government buildings instead of just occupying them...Oh well, I'm betting "a" public that's more adaptable will figure that out, maybe not in my lifetime but probably in the not so distant future.

Think about what you're saying here: the country didn't notice the fishing licensing process, so blowing up government buildings can be considered. Maybe if you read that back you'll start to see that realigning publics and governors needs attention, ie. a serious effort on behalf of the leaders and people.

[eyeball]

Yes, exactly. Setting up those communities to be accountable within their roles takes attention.

What? Are you sure we're even talking the same language?

If you're saying that things aren't happening fast enough, I find that odd owing to the fact that your suggestion would take forever to implement.

Nothing is happening, at all.

Think about what you're saying here: the country didn't notice the fishing licensing process, so blowing up government buildings can be considered. Maybe if you read that back you'll start to see that realigning publics and governors needs attention, ie. a serious effort on behalf of the leaders and people.

A serious effort at what, another bunch of well intentioned processes that never go anywhere? That'll work, again, on behalf of the leaders. The people, not so much.

[Michael Hardner]

Nothing is happening, at all.

Maybe we can collectively aim for something that's more attainable then.

A serious effort at what, another bunch of well intentioned processes that never go anywhere? That'll work, again, on behalf of the leaders. The people, not so much.

Never is a long long time. You seem to be trapped between unbridled negativity and disappointment that nothing is happening. Try to draw a line between those things.

I get it, but if I feel negative about something then I take that energy and put it towards getting involved, albeit in a small way.

[eyeball]

Maybe we can collectively aim for something that's more attainable then.

Never is a long long time. You seem to be trapped between unbridled negativity and disappointment that nothing is happening. Try to draw a line between those things.

I get it, but if I feel negative about something then I take that energy and put it towards getting involved, albeit in a small way.

No change within a lifetime is just like never. Incremental change seems more like an insult than a victory.

Maybe when I see you finally resorting to blowing up buildings I'll pay attention, in the meantime I'll be content to throw peanuts from the gallery. It's the least I can do. I'm getting to old to throw Molotov's.