This site was developed to support the Government 2.0 Taskforce, which operated from June to December 2009. The Government responded to the Government 2.0 Taskforce's report on 3 May 2010. As such, comments are now closed but you are encouraged to continue the conversation at agimo.govspace.gov.au.

Comments by

James Dellow

ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT), paragraph 127

@simonfj

Some of that advice is contained in the deliverables from Taskforce project 8, which Headshift is completing.

go to thread »
Posted December 7, 2009  5:17 pm
PROJECT PROPOSALS, paragraph 2, replying to Jimi Bostock

Sounds good! :-)

Elton, just say something. This is not some poll about whether Kyle is a jerk. This is serious stuff that will impact on our children's future. Get stuck in and tell the TF why you agree or disagree. Don't lose sight that this is really an unprecedented opportunity to engage with a key govt initiative

go to thread »
Posted August 18, 2009  1:56 pm
PROJECT PROPOSALS, paragraph 5

+1 to David’s idea
There are also a number of RM’s experts within Australia and overseas who are talking about this very subject – I think the theory is being addressed and we should build on that (i.e. just buy the book), not reinvent.

go to thread »
Posted August 18, 2009  1:52 pm
PROJECT PROPOSALS, paragraph 6

+1 to Matt’s points
But doesn’t this still require some mandate to move towards Gov 2.0 first?

go to thread »
Posted August 18, 2009  1:50 pm
PROJECT PROPOSALS, paragraph 8

I think there is room for looking at common technical and other data standards, but the user-centred approach needs to decentralised. I’m not sure you can do this in a whole of government approach, unless we are talking about building a data.gov.au site. Also, re: Project / Competition / Prize for early leadership in Semantic Web – just getting the basics right would be a good start and going to where the users are, rather than reinventing the wheel.

go to thread »
Posted August 18, 2009  1:48 pm
PROJECT PROPOSALS, paragraph 10

As a shorter term project, how about simply getting consistent availability of RSS feeds across all government Websites, and at all levels (Federal, State, Local) – see MashTheState in the UK for inspiration. Geocoding could come next and other types of simple microformats. In the longer term, perhaps look to someone like NICTA for the really serious semantic Web research and development.

go to thread »
Posted August 18, 2009  1:42 pm
PROJECT PROPOSALS, paragraph 2

Headshift would be happy to help with this (and also the Strategy to identify key barriers within agencies to Government 2.0). For example, we recently completed a report on Social Networking for the Legal Profession.

go to thread »
Posted August 18, 2009  11:00 am
PROJECT PROPOSALS, paragraph 3

Headshift would also be happy with this and the Survey of Australian Government Web 2.0 practices (they appear to be linked).

go to thread »
Posted August 18, 2009  10:58 am
PROJECT PROPOSALS, whole page

Two ideas for additional projects:
1. I believe there is still scope to put forward some small proof of concept or pilot projects within the scope of the time frame and funding available. This experience would add immensely to the survey and review projects put forward here. I realise that initiatives like SI Camp will also do this, however I think it is important that this happens in a number of different ways. For example, the Task Force could fund week long innovation sprints inside government departments (at either the fed, state or local government level) for those interested in participating.
2. Overseas experiences appear to suggest that non-government organisations have an important role to play in the development of Government 2.0. I would like to see some thought put towards developing a framework for public/non-profit/private sector collaboration for stimulating Government 2.0 innovation, education, public participation and sustainability (of Gov 2.0 projects).

go to thread »
Posted August 18, 2009  10:56 am
PROJECT PROPOSALS, paragraph 4

Headshift has experience with both government 2.0 projects and also customising Confluence (GovDex is Confluence-based site). For a selection of case studies, see by sector or by technology. We would be happy to provide a more detailed capabilities statement to the Task Force.

go to thread »
Posted August 18, 2009  10:39 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 150

Lets have an open submission process from the beginning. If people want to opt out and use snail and email, that’s fine. But lets give people the option.

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  11:04 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 144

Again, lets not confuse FoI and the OIC with the broader agenda of Gov 2.0.

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  11:01 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 133

+1 to Public Strategist (Craig – common guidelines are over rated, but I agree templates and guide are go – e.g. the needs of one agency may be different from another)

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  11:00 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 125

I made this comment earlier – we actually need to deal with the legal holes around this. Then it becomes a question of using effective moderation processes, depending on the desired outcome – but those will be on a case by case basis.

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  10:58 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 116

I don’t see the infrastructure for innovation being addressed in the report scope at this point. Its a major omission.

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  10:56 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 121

I think this point should be a separate focus area for the Task Force in this report.

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  10:55 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 66

…and how do you balance that with innovation?

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  10:53 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 56

The biggest barrier I’ve come across around online engagement has been the uncertainty of liability for comments made by people online.

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  10:51 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 55

This assumes that the government controls all this information. This point needs to be reframed and expanded a little. e.g. wikileaks.

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  10:50 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 39

+1 to both comments.

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  10:46 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 38

Again, needs to be positioned as a question. Record Management 2.0 is whole subject in its own right anyway.

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  10:46 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 37

Again, over prescriptive and locked in the existing mindset. This needs to be positioned as a question.

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  10:45 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 36

The process described here is a little prescriptive. I think it needs to be scoped back so you do don’t define the solution – i.e. wikipedia wouldn’t fit that model.

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  10:40 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 26

FoI appears to be a bit of theme in this document? However, I would hate to see this confuse the Gov 2.0 conversation. One of the challenges is simply making routine information that is already published more accessible. E.g train timetables.

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  10:37 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 25

I would have liked to see a specific point to review the Gershon Review in the context of Government 2.0. Where does it support Gov 2.0 and where is it a barrier.

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  10:34 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 23

+1 to Craig and Ron’s comments

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  10:33 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 10

I think that’s a narrow interpretation of Government 2.0. Fair enough if that’s the scope for the task force, but define it as such.

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  10:26 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], paragraph 3

This and para 5 appear to conflict? Also, why not consider using some Web 2.0 feedback mechanisms like the uservoice system? http://uservoice.com/
The process of feedback is important in defining how Government 2.0 will be different.

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  10:20 am
TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [beta - now closed], whole page

+1
I noticed that. We might take that point further, as nothing in the scope really addresses how the structures and processes of government overall might actually change through Government 2.0. As you say, the focus is really about the interface of how information gets in and out. It also lacks a vision or a description of the problems are we trying to solve.

go to thread »
Posted July 21, 2009  10:14 am