Some of that advice is contained in the deliverables from Taskforce project 8, which Headshift is completing.
+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.
+1 to Matt’s points
But doesn’t this still require some mandate to move towards Gov 2.0 first?
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.
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.
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.
Headshift would also be happy with this and the Survey of Australian Government Web 2.0 practices (they appear to be linked).
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).
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.
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.
Again, lets not confuse FoI and the OIC with the broader agenda of Gov 2.0.
+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)
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.
I don’t see the infrastructure for innovation being addressed in the report scope at this point. Its a major omission.
I think this point should be a separate focus area for the Task Force in this report.
…and how do you balance that with innovation?
The biggest barrier I’ve come across around online engagement has been the uncertainty of liability for comments made by people online.
This assumes that the government controls all this information. This point needs to be reframed and expanded a little. e.g. wikileaks.
+1 to both comments.
Again, needs to be positioned as a question. Record Management 2.0 is whole subject in its own right anyway.
Again, over prescriptive and locked in the existing mindset. This needs to be positioned as a question.
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.
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.
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.
+1 to Craig and Ron’s comments
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.
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.
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.