Is it too silly to think someone like Craig could start his response to a blog like this with a statement that clearly stated “I am not speaking in an official capacity on behalf of the government agency for which I work” and then share his knowledge and expertise?

Two edged because it showed how web 2.0 tools can be of genuine public benefit during an emergency, and how restrictive licensing of government data can be a genuine barrier. For those who haven’t heard the story, you can find more details in Nick’s story above, or at http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Google-map-tracks-deadly-bushfires-in-Victoria/0,130061733,339294842,00.htm.

Anecdotally, I’ve heard of similar problems during natural disasters in other states, with incompatible licensing preventing different government departments sharing information with each other, so that they are forced to go to commercial providers for the same information.

I’d love to engage you on whether speaking about a department is speaking ‘on their behalf’. But I sense that that’s not a conversation you can have here

In the meantime, thanks for your input, and I hope we can have some more one way or another.

I’m aware of more than a few internal and public facing initiatives in Australian federal government agencies which would make good Gov 2.0 stories, however I am not authorised as a public servant to talk about them publicly without appropriate senior level approval.

One rule applied across most of the Australian public service is that only specific people are authorised to speak publicly on behalf of a Department. Talking about a Department’s public initiatives (whether their own Department’s or another’s) has, in my experience, been considered by senior management as falling within the scope of this rule. There’s some good reasons this rule was originally created, however it does preclude talking about certain initiatives in a public forum without agency authorisation.

I can provide a few examples from other countries however these may not resonate as well as initiatives developed within an Australian Public Service framework.

I’ll note the Wikimedia Foundation’s projects. They have been the most pervasive and had the greatest impact in pointing out that global institutions are superceding the old National ones. Wikipedia, as one, has always been an example of a lighter form (almost no) governance. But you’d need to feel a part of its global community to understand what I mean. I can’t explain what an Open Culture is to one who must live in a closed one.

I’m not sure you can continue to use the old language of “government service delivery and policy making” though. As the civil space enlarges to compensate for siloed agencies, hopefully the people inside them may understand that ‘their’ policies are just confirmation of a progression that needed to be formalized (years) earlier. Matt says; “I think the real challenge for government is to engage communities”. I say “I think the real challenge for communities is to engage government(s).

Most of the evidence you’re after has already taken place in the .edu domain (not so much in Australia). Just view the initiatives , tools and infrastructure circulating around a Google on Open Education Resourcesand distance learning.

You mentioned in your Washington post that Australia is a long way behind in “structural advantages”. I’m not sure this is the case. It’s just that Australians keep ‘their’ .edu and .gov (and pubic and private) sectors so separated. E.g. All these tools are available to our parliamentarians and bureaucrats but they have no idea of how they may be utilised, even though they insist their children must, and so pay and pay for the half used tools (usually to a multinational).

I’d forget about trying to make a real cultural change in the bureaucracies if I was you Nick. It’s not fair to insist that they change when our reps are the people who must lead by example. And (if you talk to them) they want to. But good on ya. Keep chipping at monoliths.

I think the effort showed a couple of things. First that people who care about public policy issues and know how to use the tools can organize a coherent response and that government needed to at least take it seriously. The final report referenced the effort. Secondly, that the ability to do this is currently largely limited to the geeks who know it can be done and know how to go about it. Real success will come when we see one of these that isn’t either a PR exercise or has a direct connection to people who earn their money from commenting on the web. I don’t think its that far away.