We all know that the immediacy and reach of the Internet provides government with unprecedented opportunities to connect with stakeholders and communities, but – from my experience – there’s still lots of ignorance within government about what it means to be ‘Web 2.0′; needless to say, it is going to take far more than just a technology and/or functionality upgrade to government websites…we need strong leadership and vision, good governance, sound online communications strategies and adequate internal resources in order to realise the potential that Web 2.0+ can bring.

This Gov 2.0 initiative looks like an excellent step towards the latter, and it’s my hope that government agency heads will support it and have the courage to help influence cultural change within their respective agencies.

He is right to stress that this web 2.0 will all be pretty hard yakka for government

Of course, rather than just government coming up with solutions, we need government to be using tools to listen in and understand what is already being discussed in social media

this attention to the conversations already underway will only help pollies and agencies get it right more often on any number of issues

We did discuss going a bit more casual but it was me more than the department that was worried about it turning into a shoutfest between interest groups and political operatives.

So, we moved back from my initial idea of a free for all.

So, Glen’s comments resonate with me and I think his post addresses something that is going to take a lot of thinking and some trial and error before getting it right

My own view is that Government 2.0 is primarily about the latter, that is, about exploring the opportunities of the social web for new forms of engagement – new conversations, if you will – between citizens and government and between citizens themselves as part of a larger governance process. That isn’t to say that the former focus, that is on using these new tools to do some of the traditional work of government better, is not also important.

But your observation is spot on, I think – we have an opportunity to do some rethinking about how citizens and governments connect and, in the process, invent some new ways for expertise and commitment to be discovered and used well.

Then, the cycle of conversation has to continue: share plans and intended processes, and listen to what people give as feedback.

And again, when decisions have been made, during execution, it is important to keep people up-to-date on what is happening and receive their feedback.

So, it’s a three-faced beast: share information, listen, and act. If the action is not seen, you will soon lose the feedback. It’s a very important part of a successful conversation and the most important one that encourages people to continue with the conversation.

- the scale on which it can occur through social tools
- the level of activity required to aid that scale

They’re also often not equipped with the skills to participate online in this way. It’s too far outside the bounds of familiar models.

There’s also the problem that either organisations figure that “this social stuff can’t be that hard”, or someone gives them advice to that end. Not true. It’s as hard, or more so, than any other form of consultation.

More than anything, governments need to get good advice and build strong skills, either through internal or external sources. They wouldn’t do any other task unprepared, the same goes for this.

It got me thinking about these sort of functions of government to put out calls for submissions and the like. The capabilities of the web were used to extend the function of the government, to advertise the call for submissions. It seems to me that new relations could have been created, however. For example, instead of merely using the web to advertise the submission process, some kind of ‘project forum’ could’ve been set up on a less formal level than an actual submission. This could serve as a space for discussion for interested parties, who could’ve helped each other shape and improve submissions. I am not talking about ‘debating’ issues, but more about sharing resources and the like to help people who may not have experience with the more formal process, but have a keen interest in the topic.

So my more general point is best expressed as a question, is this Gov 2.0 iniative about extending the already existing function of government or about figuring out ways to use new communications technologies to enable citizens to participate in the process of government?