Comments on: Online Engagement Review http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/ Design by Ben Crothers of Catch Media Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:51:50 +1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Government 2.0 Taskforce draft report – a centralised response to decentralised action « Convergence Emergence http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/comment-page-1/#comment-5735 Government 2.0 Taskforce draft report – a centralised response to decentralised action « Convergence Emergence Sat, 12 Dec 2009 07:01:05 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1419#comment-5735 [...] There has been many opportunities for citizens to contribute to the work of the Taskforce. I have been particularly impressed with the high quality of interaction on theĀ  Taskforce blog. Sure, [...] [...] There has been many opportunities for citizens to contribute to the work of the Taskforce. I have been particularly impressed with the high quality of interaction on theĀ  Taskforce blog. Sure, [...]

]]>
By: simonfj http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/comment-page-1/#comment-5452 simonfj Mon, 07 Dec 2009 01:24:41 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1419#comment-5452 Nick, With the few resources you've had, the TF has been able to do a laudable job. The live streaming/recording/archiving is <a href="http://www.opencastproject.org/project/matterhorn" rel="nofollow">a Matterhorn</a> on which every edu and gov institutions is trying to get a handle, so don't take my comments as criticism. I hope you'll be using this place to keep us up to date <a href="http://broadbandfuture.gov.au/streams.html" rel="nofollow">with the talkfest</a>. Would you keep in mind one thing now, please, as you hand on a report to the bureaucracy. The work in gov 2 has just begun now. The real challenge is to implement the findings of so many reports, and this is where one culture can (and does) dumb down all the hard work of the new one you are attempting to introduce. We're talking now about coming up with (a) spec(s), which must put communities (social) spaces at the middle of its inquiry, rather than one agency or a closed inter-agency committee. Can you keep this bit open as well? All the best. Nick,

With the few resources you’ve had, the TF has been able to do a laudable job. The live streaming/recording/archiving is a Matterhorn on which every edu and gov institutions is trying to get a handle, so don’t take my comments as criticism. I hope you’ll be using this place to keep us up to date with the talkfest.

Would you keep in mind one thing now, please, as you hand on a report to the bureaucracy. The work in gov 2 has just begun now. The real challenge is to implement the findings of so many reports, and this is where one culture can (and does) dumb down all the hard work of the new one you are attempting to introduce. We’re talking now about coming up with (a) spec(s), which must put communities (social) spaces at the middle of its inquiry, rather than one agency or a closed inter-agency committee.

Can you keep this bit open as well? All the best.

]]>
By: Craig Thomler http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/comment-page-1/#comment-5414 Craig Thomler Sun, 06 Dec 2009 09:04:30 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1419#comment-5414 There was a Taskforce Facebook channel? I wasn't aware. There was a Taskforce Facebook channel?

I wasn’t aware.

]]>
By: simonfj http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/comment-page-1/#comment-5344 simonfj Sat, 05 Dec 2009 09:44:48 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1419#comment-5344 Kevin, While I'm revising this; <a href="http://www.incommonfederation.org/docs/guides/faq.cfm" rel="nofollow">is this</a> what you're aiming for? Kevin,

While I’m revising this; is this what you’re aiming for?

]]>
By: Paul Roberts http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/comment-page-1/#comment-5336 Paul Roberts Sat, 05 Dec 2009 06:36:50 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1419#comment-5336 No, thanks to you Nicholas for your unflinching capacity to engage with so many, so often. On thinking a little more, I wonder about two more things: - how widely members of the public engaged in Gov2.0 discussion over their own networks, and how interesting it would be to discover more of that, and to learn from it, and - given their own resources, tapping into their own creativity, how much more could we have heard, seen or read about from others that we did not. Especially in regard to what they may feel about Gov2.0 and its potential to better their lives. After all, self-expression, creativity and connecting with others are basic human needs. Whether its painting a picture, telling a story or making a video - there are many forms of communication beyond the dominant form of government/citizen engagement: reading and writing. I'm not being critical of the Taskforce here - my intent is just to share a view that the potential scope for Gov2.0 is as diverse as all forms of human self-expression and communication. Picking one platform or tool over another ought not be a constraint to other forms of communication. I feel there is potential for Gov2.0 to be "open access" as it were to many more of those forms. No, thanks to you Nicholas for your unflinching capacity to engage with so many, so often.

On thinking a little more, I wonder about two more things:

- how widely members of the public engaged in Gov2.0 discussion over their own networks, and how interesting it would be to discover more of that, and to learn from it, and

- given their own resources, tapping into their own creativity, how much more could we have heard, seen or read about from others that we did not. Especially in regard to what they may feel about Gov2.0 and its potential to better their lives.

After all, self-expression, creativity and connecting with others are basic human needs. Whether its painting a picture, telling a story or making a video – there are many forms of communication beyond the dominant form of government/citizen engagement: reading and writing.

I’m not being critical of the Taskforce here – my intent is just to share a view that the potential scope for Gov2.0 is as diverse as all forms of human self-expression and communication. Picking one platform or tool over another ought not be a constraint to other forms of communication. I feel there is potential for Gov2.0 to be “open access” as it were to many more of those forms.

]]>
By: Nicholas Gruen http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/comment-page-1/#comment-5332 Nicholas Gruen Sat, 05 Dec 2009 05:06:00 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1419#comment-5332 Thanks Paul, All pretty fair comments from my point of view. We did try to podcast those shows we could record and the podcasts are hoisted on this blog. Thanks Paul,

All pretty fair comments from my point of view. We did try to podcast those shows we could record and the podcasts are hoisted on this blog.

]]>
By: Paul Roberts http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/comment-page-1/#comment-5324 Paul Roberts Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:15:29 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1419#comment-5324 I agree with Stephen's suggestion to continue the conversation. As government agencies will be learning about Gov2.0 for some time as they move from consideration to practice, an ongoing engagement with the public about the practice of Gov2.0 makes sense. Perhaps my most lasting memory of the practice of the Government 2.0 Taskforce is the congruency with its mission to promote Gov2.0. The high quality level of interaction and thought-provoking discussion on this blog site in particular sent an impressively positive message to those inside and outside of government about the potential power of Gov2.0. Similarly, use the use of Twitter, both by the Taskforce and individual twitterers provided another lively platform for information and knowledge sharing. Use of interactive draft issues papers and submissions was a positive move. On a not so positive note, public service representatives engagement - using 'robust policy discussion' as a measure - could have been better. Perhaps that is another indicator of the cultural challenge ahead. While I became a fan of the Taskforce on Facebook, I noticed that the platform fell flat in terms of engagement. I feel more could have been done to promote the Facebook channel with the view to engaging a broader audience, in Australia and internationally. In a similar vein, video postings on YouTube (to capture presentations or interviews or panel sessions) does not appear to have been considered. I don't know whether a Wiki was considered or not. There are several ways in which Wikis have been used successfully in other public engagement online processes. These were all missed opportunities to showcase some more collaboration tools. As regards the roadshows, I thought the Melbourne event was underdone. Only one Taskforce member managed to turn up. The formal setting sat at odds with the freely flowing discussion on this blog and on Twitter. I don't recall any attempt to podcast the roadshows - but I might be wrong there. I agree with Stephen’s suggestion to continue the conversation. As government agencies will be learning about Gov2.0 for some time as they move from consideration to practice, an ongoing engagement with the public about the practice of Gov2.0 makes sense.

Perhaps my most lasting memory of the practice of the Government 2.0 Taskforce is the congruency with its mission to promote Gov2.0. The high quality level of interaction and thought-provoking discussion on this blog site in particular sent an impressively positive message to those inside and outside of government about the potential power of Gov2.0. Similarly, use the use of Twitter, both by the Taskforce and individual twitterers provided another lively platform for information and knowledge sharing. Use of interactive draft issues papers and submissions was a positive move.

On a not so positive note, public service representatives engagement – using ‘robust policy discussion’ as a measure – could have been better. Perhaps that is another indicator of the cultural challenge ahead.

While I became a fan of the Taskforce on Facebook, I noticed that the platform fell flat in terms of engagement. I feel more could have been done to promote the Facebook channel with the view to engaging a broader audience, in Australia and internationally. In a similar vein, video postings on YouTube (to capture presentations or interviews or panel sessions) does not appear to have been considered. I don’t know whether a Wiki was considered or not. There are several ways in which Wikis have been used successfully in other public engagement online processes. These were all missed opportunities to showcase some more collaboration tools.

As regards the roadshows, I thought the Melbourne event was underdone. Only one Taskforce member managed to turn up. The formal setting sat at odds with the freely flowing discussion on this blog and on Twitter. I don’t recall any attempt to podcast the roadshows – but I might be wrong there.

]]>
By: simonfj http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/comment-page-1/#comment-5254 simonfj Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:31:38 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1419#comment-5254 I'm sure the department would be aware that <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/about.html" rel="nofollow">pandora</a> is there as a place to archive this blog, as it is for all emphemeral .gov.au stuff. It's no good for "all parts of the outgrowth from it" primarily because the context between domains can't be kept in its original form. This idea of moving content from one IP address to another is quite a stupid idea of course = treating virtual data like the physical. But that's what happens when professions never work together to reconsider how the online interactive media model demand a completely new approach to it's treatment. "<em>all parts of it's outgrowth</em>" (I take it) refers to the web based networks that offer simple services. E.g. Ideascale, twitter - in short 'social networking, web based domains - which are of little use to a governmental process if their record is not captured in the wider context of an inquiry (in so far as this inquiry is a very small subset of similar global inquiries). One noticeable difference in this Aussie one is the complete absence of any use of real time communications. Kate Lundy's was far more progressive in that the publicsphere series of events attempted the use of ustream as a natural complementary in including various sites (remote people) at the same event. I find <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Consultations/Current://" rel="nofollow">the scots are the most progressive</a> here. I am aware that the taskforce was donated the use of videoconferencing by Cisco. But the modern extension of this antiquated and 'closed' media has all conferences streamed, recorded and archived as references in an online environment, where questions and comments are gathered in situ. So far as the path forward, I can only point to the various half hearted attempts of social networking, each made by different sectors of .gov.au agencies, each with a supposedly different community. Me.edu.au in the edu space and <a href="https://www.govdex.gov.au/user/index.do" rel="nofollow">govdex</a> in the gov.au are just two replications of the myriad of stillborn duplications. Our governmental (edu and gov) agencies refuse to collaborate in the support of inquiries built around disciplinary groups who attract National (in gov) and International (in edu) communities of interest. Each silo goes it's own way, oblivious of gaining, and sharing, a broader education. We can repeat the many inquiries undertaken by so many silos since kevin07 tried breaking the ice with the 2020 summit, and whose findings now lie buried inside some citadel of "efficient" delivery. But until we have (say) five agencies provide moderators who share the running of one enquiry, Aussies are just caught in a silo frame of mind. You'd understand why I'm moving to Europe. The EU demands a transnational perspective, while Australia can't get past its state borders. I’m sure the department would be aware that pandora is there as a place to archive this blog, as it is for all emphemeral .gov.au stuff. It’s no good for “all parts of the outgrowth from it” primarily because the context between domains can’t be kept in its original form.

This idea of moving content from one IP address to another is quite a stupid idea of course = treating virtual data like the physical. But that’s what happens when professions never work together to reconsider how the online interactive media model demand a completely new approach to it’s treatment. “all parts of it’s outgrowth” (I take it) refers to the web based networks that offer simple services. E.g. Ideascale, twitter – in short ’social networking, web based domains – which are of little use to a governmental process if their record is not captured in the wider context of an inquiry (in so far as this inquiry is a very small subset of similar global inquiries).

One noticeable difference in this Aussie one is the complete absence of any use of real time communications. Kate Lundy’s was far more progressive in that the publicsphere series of events attempted the use of ustream as a natural complementary in including various sites (remote people) at the same event. I find the scots are the most progressive here. I am aware that the taskforce was donated the use of videoconferencing by Cisco. But the modern extension of this antiquated and ‘closed’ media has all conferences streamed, recorded and archived as references in an online environment, where questions and comments are gathered in situ.

So far as the path forward, I can only point to the various half hearted attempts of social networking, each made by different sectors of .gov.au agencies, each with a supposedly different community. Me.edu.au in the edu space and govdex in the gov.au are just two replications of the myriad of stillborn duplications. Our governmental (edu and gov) agencies refuse to collaborate in the support of inquiries built around disciplinary groups who attract National (in gov) and International (in edu) communities of interest.

Each silo goes it’s own way, oblivious of gaining, and sharing, a broader education. We can repeat the many inquiries undertaken by so many silos since kevin07 tried breaking the ice with the 2020 summit, and whose findings now lie buried inside some citadel of “efficient” delivery. But until we have (say) five agencies provide moderators who share the running of one enquiry, Aussies are just caught in a silo frame of mind.

You’d understand why I’m moving to Europe. The EU demands a transnational perspective, while Australia can’t get past its state borders.

]]>
By: Kevin Cox http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/comment-page-1/#comment-5214 Kevin Cox Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:49:21 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1419#comment-5214 Simonfj, Your reference to the Australian Access Federation illustrates the point . Our company is in the process of joining the AAF in some form or other. Our purpose in joining is to give individuals access to their credentials they may have obtained while at University. We can contribute to the AAF in many ways including supplying services and income to the organisation. You now know I am interested in AAF and you know you are likely to get comment from me if you are looking for it with respect to Federated identities. This connection is unlikely to have happened without this forum. Simonfj,

Your reference to the Australian Access Federation illustrates the point . Our company is in the process of joining the AAF in some form or other. Our purpose in joining is to give individuals access to their credentials they may have obtained while at University. We can contribute to the AAF in many ways including supplying services and income to the organisation.

You now know I am interested in AAF and you know you are likely to get comment from me if you are looking for it with respect to Federated identities. This connection is unlikely to have happened without this forum.

]]>
By: simonfj http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/30/online-engagement-review/comment-page-1/#comment-5210 simonfj Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:05:23 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1419#comment-5210 Geez Kevin. What a difference two days makes. This is nice approach. It really is the crux of the <em>digital engagement</em> (sorry. can we use the terminology <a href="http://blogs.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/digitalengagement/post/2009/10/23/International-links.aspx" rel="nofollow">most the rest of the english speaking</a> world is using). Ultimately the committees of aph.gov.au will need/want to start using this stuff if they want to remain relevant. If you delve into the procedures committee (<a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/proc/reports.htm" rel="nofollow">over the years</a>) you'll find them <em>talking</em> about <em>modernising parliamentry procedures</em> ad infintum. The taskforce (and Kate lundy's publicsphere) have given the unimaginative some hope. I would have thought the obvious place would be in the parliamentary archives in the appropriate committees records. Seems like heresy I know ("this is not an <em>official</em> inquiry!) But ultimately, all inquries are taken out on behalf of parliament and it would be useful as many future enquiries will include global communities (in Europe anyway), so it would be nice to see Australia take the same (outwardly forcussed) perspective. This is the most succinct and understated definition I've read of the common needs of both edu and gov. <blockquote>Some sort of facility that would enable such groups to form for a purpose would be most useful. </blockquote>. I'd add <em>enable subject specific</em>groups. me.edu.au is one (old) attempt at coming up with some aggregation of the functionality of popular web services. Perhaps the one most progressive move any gov.au agency could undertake right now is <a href="http://www.aaf.edu.au/index.php/services/" rel="nofollow">joining this initiative</a>, where we can inquire into what service requirements their common communities have in common. Geez Kevin.

What a difference two days makes. This is nice approach. It really is the crux of the digital engagement (sorry. can we use the terminology most the rest of the english speaking world is using). Ultimately the committees of aph.gov.au will need/want to start using this stuff if they want to remain relevant. If you delve into the procedures committee (over the years) you’ll find them talking about modernising parliamentry procedures ad infintum. The taskforce (and Kate lundy’s publicsphere) have given the unimaginative some hope.

I would have thought the obvious place would be in the parliamentary archives in the appropriate committees records. Seems like heresy I know (”this is not an official inquiry!) But ultimately, all inquries are taken out on behalf of parliament and it would be useful as many future enquiries will include global communities (in Europe anyway), so it would be nice to see Australia take the same (outwardly forcussed) perspective.

This is the most succinct and understated definition I’ve read of the common needs of both edu and gov.

Some sort of facility that would enable such groups to form for a purpose would be most useful.

. I’d add enable subject specificgroups. me.edu.au is one (old) attempt at coming up with some aggregation of the functionality of popular web services.

Perhaps the one most progressive move any gov.au agency could undertake right now is joining this initiative, where we can inquire into what service requirements their common communities have in common.

]]>