Comments on: TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed]

By: Kimbra White

Kimbra White — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:01:58 +0000

Digital engagement is one aspect or technique within the field of community engagement or public participation in government decision making. As such it sits with in participatory democracy frameworks that have already been developed in this field by organisations like the International Association for Public Participation (www.iap2.org.au); an association that has a thriving presence in Australia.
It has a set of seven core principles starting with “the public should have a say in decisions about actions that affect their lives.” The second is ” public participat includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence the decision.” As such it behoves us to identify all stakeholders to a decision, some of whom will engage in the digital world and others for whom we need to seek out their involvement. It also requires us to work with the decision makers on the level of decision making power that they are willing to share with the public (in this case through using these digital channels).
IAP2 also has a spectrum of participation (very widely used that provides a basis for deciding on the level of engagement being undertaken in relation to any decision), a toolkit of many techniques and a certified training course, most importantly providing skills and expertise on how to plan for community engagement – whether it is online or face to face.

By: Glenn Irvine

Glenn Irvine — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:37:20 +0000

I think at this early stage, it would be very advantageous for the working group behind this initiative to make contact with Dr Lars Rasmussen from Google in Sydney (lars@google.com) to investigate the Google Wave initiative (especially as it is being offered as Open Source) and can be managed on Government's infrastructure (both externally and internally). The thinking about transparency and social collaboration is industry leading and the development effort is managed out of Google's Australian (Sydney) Labs. Happy to discuss... Regards, Glenn Irvine glenn.irvine@collaborativeview.com www.collaborativeview.com

By: Paul Roberts

Paul Roberts — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:32:00 +0000

I feel this last comment could be expanded on. Interaction (online engagement) between government officials and citizens involves conversation. That may involve something easy like correcting information. It may involve sharing perspectives and knowledge that in turn fosters new insight and innovation. The challenge for public servants is having the authority and discretion to interact in that way. Mistakes might be made but the benefits make the risks worthwhile. I would like the issues paper to facilitate discussion around this area, one that I see is a huge challenge, including going into what may be politically sensitive issues.

By: fmac

fmac — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:19:58 +0000

I agree with Paul – Web2.0 is about interaction, sharing, and building a real sense of engagement for all. Many to many gives no sense of the power of Web2.0

By: fmac

fmac — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:14:19 +0000

This approach suggests that the primary beneficiary of Gov2.0 will be government. While, I agree that there are obvious benefits for government, I would suggest that the primary beneficiaries will be citizens.

To deliver citizen centric benefits will require much more than “the transformative power of the technology” – it will require a real and demonstrable commitment to making it happen over the long haul.

By: Paul Roberts

Paul Roberts — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:55:43 +0000

Suggested substitute …a culture and capability for online engagement…

Having a willingness to engage is one thing. Having the capacity (through relevant skills and abilities) is another.

By: Paul Roberts

Paul Roberts — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:50:22 +0000

Perhaps the sentence should read “How can we build a culture within government which favours the disclosure of public sector information?”

By: Paul Roberts

Paul Roberts — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:46:33 +0000

While I applaud the shift from point to point to many to many, the language is likely to confuse many people. A description for Web 2.0 that I’ve found useful is that its about participation and interaction.

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:10:33 +0000

Well Mark,

I’m not sure we can use your comment to improve our Issues Paper, but I enjoyed it nevertheless. We don’t have any prize for best turn of phrase, but if we did I’d nominate this string of words from you”

“[A]ll but a tiny-minority of bug-eating crazies know that the entire issue is a big joke perpetuated by large doses of weapons-grade stupidity.”

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:24:03 +0000

Agreed Silvia, that would be my ideal also. Now to actually bring it about . . .