Open Government. Theoretically, it all started in Canada. 1896.

 

Are you taking notes? Part Two

In my first post, titled Are you taking notes? I introduced Canadian writer Gourlay and his (a)musing history of the Ottawa Valley, Canada's seat of government. Inspiration has zany origins. With Gourlay, we're dealing with a well-read, fervently Christian Canadian who was highly versed in the Valley's history. Lucky for us, he didn't bury the main jewel a number of pages in. He placed it on the front page. He argued that human history is marked by the loss of records and repeating of errors, that is "to indolence and carelessness may be attributed the meagre information we possess regarding the origin, progress, growth and decay of so many branches of the human race." Gourlay's prescription is one of the earliest intimations of Gov 2.0 that I've come across. In 1896 he wrote:

Intelligent young people should keep short notes of stirring events that come within the range of their observation as these must be of interest and in the hands of one who could classify and arrange and generalize they would not be heavy, but readable.

And as I then wrote:

The implications of Gourlay's insights requires that we (those concerned with the cultural-technological transformation of Government -- Gov 2.0) focus on: intelligent (young) people (1), short notes (2), stirring events (3), ranges of observation (4), those who classify, arrange, and generalize (5-A,B,C), the notion of heaviness related to accessing records (6), and the notion of readable relating to the records and their accessing (7).

Disclaimer: Based on this (unearthed) framework, I hope to slowly edge toward a working paper on Gov 2.0 from a Canadian perspective.

Where to start?...

Intelligent (young) people? Stirring events? How about... Range(s) of observation!

As I started to write out section (4) I remembered my last meditation on all of this. Number four is the pivot. Gourlay's remark was written as a spectrum, beginning with intelligent young people and ending with things that are readable. As I let this notion of a Gov 2.0 spectrum sink in, I'm going to bail on taking up any one specific section just yet. Can I get by with a graphic?
Tagged Note-taking Open Government

Get organized already! The Art of Community is freely available!

(download)

No matter your venture or vision, building up genuine participation is essential. If you're not sure where to start or end up, Jono Bacon cooks! 


As a follow up or companion to this freely available work by Bacon, consider the online course by Harvard's Marshall Ganz.

Tagged Books Community Organizing Participation

legislation.gov.uk

The new legislation site for the UK launched, with a great piece on its significance by American Robert Richards. Another great article is over at the Special Libraries Association blog, Government Information Division. As @SimonTanner shared, the oldest piece of legislation is from 1267. Like the still nascent Law.gov (US), these sites bring together many 'surface' materials such as statutes, decisions and other laws, all formatted according to WC3 Linked Data (slideshow) standards.

But as my earlier post on legislative informatics explained, the revolutions will take place out of sight, in offices, chambers, bureaus and courts. These top-level efforts are the logical place to start reforming our information management practices. But the effects will ripple down, and then back up. On a past show, TVO's Steve Paikin cited the old adage, that people need not see how sausages nor laws are made. But this is precisely what will come into view. All the adjustments, alterations and re-thinking will become viewable. The process of law will be available to all (who are interested). Scrutiny is not always about accountability. Sometimes it's about dynamic, evolutionary law practice and the invigoration of law studies in societies like ours, that is, societies that are open(ing up).

Amazing Overview of Global GIS Situation by Carleton University Prof. #opendata

(download)

Tagged Canada Carleton University GIS Standards United Nations

TonyClement_MP, what's the big idea?

Short Form

The census is changing. So, too, Statistics Canada.

This will involve the responsible Minister (Governor in Council) affirming his latent powers.
This will be complimented by high-levels of collaboration between Minister and Chief Statistician.

The Minister will permanently invoke Section 5 (Temporary Employees) in order to diffusely aggregate census-like information in support of the Statistics Act, Section 22 (a) - (u).

Long Form

This is about privacy. But the following is about public-ity.
 
In a recent blog post, @stephantelka suggests that the Canadian census debate is an opportunity for public dialogue. What shapes would the dialogue take? Stephan offers three possibilities. Face-to-face dialogues around the country. An online consultation, perhaps using ChoiceBook. Perhaps an online chat with Tony. As to whether or not these events are likely... not as important as Stephan's admonishment. 
 
It is through listening to understand, exploring and testing one’s personal assumptions, searching for strengths and value in other positions, and seeking an outcome that creates new common ground that sustainable decisions can be found on this issue and other pressing public policy issues.

I like that idea... new common ground. Or maybe novel common ground, new to many of us but not literally new, maybe ground that's just been unoccupied till now. What do they call that? Crown ground? What crown-commonality is between all of us? How can we make it work? Listening? Understanding? Exploring? Testing? Searching? Seeking? Sustainable decisions?

Today Minister Clement "testified" to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Within government committee context, testimony equates to answering questions posed  but at times Clement was more like a Tony Hayward. He dodged questions and kept  his course. In the video below at 1:30 Clement reveals part of the Conservative position. We are balancing privacy concerns with the desire for "more and more data." 
 
note: I wish there was a way to remove the video's title when embedding. i need the video file, not the opinion of the uploader. 

Clement's notion of more and more data suggests the perception of a trajectory. The long form has been growing, and in places like the United States numbers around 300 questions. This desire for data has turned course South of the border. Census workers now employ GPS tools, and like Google are busy mapping every point and place. Nothing much. They just 'tag' your front door. The US Census Bureau justifies the census this way. Unlike the US website dedicated solely to privacy issues,  I could not find any equivalent Canadian site. Seems there's more room for U.S. agencies to create sites as they need fit. They might be on to something down there. Where was I? Slightly lost. Found it! One page on privacy. Actually, it's on confidentiality.

Clement suggests that in light of growing resentment, on the one hand, and a civil society and bureaucracy foaming evermore for data on the other, a balance must be struck. As some Americans duly point out, one must answer one simple question, not the other 8 or 9 -- how many people live at this address? In Canada this is mandated through the Statistics Act,  Actually it's section 19.1 and 19.2. Like in the US and elsewhere, it's for the purposes of Federal elections and the maintenance of responsible government. That should have cross-isle support.

Population census

19.

 (1) A census of population of Canada shall be taken by Statistics Canada in the month of June in the year 1971, and every fifth year thereafter in a month to be fixed by the Governor in Council.

Counts of electoral divisions

(2) The census of population shall be taken in such a manner as to ensure that counts of the population are provided for each federal electoral district of Canada, as constituted at the time of each census of population.

If I read things right, the questions on the short form extraneous to the household and its number of occupants, as well as the long form which is being put within the National Household Survey come just after the legally mandated agriculture census, under section 21.

Census questions

21.

 (1) The Governor in Council shall, by order, prescribe the questions to be asked in any census taken by Statistics Canada under section 19 or 20.
 
While we're on the Act, lets clarify the whole fine or imprisonment thing.
 

False or unlawful information

31.

 Every person who, without lawful excuse,

(a) refuses or neglects to answer, or wilfully answers falsely, any question requisite for obtaining any information sought in respect of the objects of this Act or pertinent thereto that has been asked of him by any person employed or deemed to be employed under this Act, or

(b) refuses or neglects to furnish any information or to fill in to the best of his knowledge and belief any schedule or form that the person has been required to fill in, and to return the same when and as required of him pursuant to this Act, or knowingly gives false or misleading information or practises any other deception thereunder

is, for every refusal or neglect, or false answer or deception, guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both. 1970-71-72, c. 15, s. 29.

 

It's clear that clause 31 applies to all requirements in the Act, which includes exchange between parties and the Chief Statistician, including the Minister of "National Revenue." To be clear, (a) applies to the State-related aspects of the Act while (b) applies to the homeowner, the dweller, the citizen, i.e. those subject to the completion of schedules and forms. The penalty for either (a) or (b) is $500 or 3 months or less in jail, plus, it seems, other reprimands for State-stuff. It does also seem, that contrary to the US Code, Canadians must answer those 7,8 or 9 other questions prescribed by the Governor in Council, though he does prescribe under either section 19 or 20. Either way, the Act makes clear that beyond questions of population, all other questions are prescriptions.

...

Wait. 

I do want to stop with this Act. 

Believe that, you. 

But there's just too much there. Section 5. "Temporary" Employees.

 

Temporary employees

5.

(1) The Minister may employ, in the manner authorized by law, such commissioners, enumerators, agents or other persons as are necessary to collect for Statistics Canada such statistics and information as the Minister deems useful and in the public interest relating to such commercial, industrial, financial, social, economic and other activities as the Minister may determine, and the duties of the commissioners, enumerators, agents or other persons shall be those duties prescribed by the Minister.

Public servants

(2) The Minister may, for such periods as the Minister may determine, use the services of any employee of the public service of Canada in the exercise or performance of any duty, power or function of Statistics Canada or an officer of Statistics Canada under this Act or any other Act, and any person whose services are so used shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a person employed under this Act.

Contracted services

(3) Any persons retained under contract to perform special services for the Minister pursuant to this Act and the employees and agents of those persons shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be persons employed under this Act while performing those services. 1970-71-72, c. 15, s. 5

 

 
People around Ottawa know that temp help is the new normal. It's like that at program level, and I also suspect it'll become commonplace for Statistics Canada. I tentatively predict that Minister Clement and his Counsel plan on making the temporary permanent. Huh? 
 
If not, then this blog is all the swifter. Either way, let me brief-ly bring you up to speed. 
 
Statistics Canada is to be born again. The formula will be part magic but rooted in Act. The mise en scene is being set as we chaotically publish, but the actual plot line remains opaque. From what we can gather at this time, it seems things will pivot around "The Minister." Who would have guessed? The Minister in lights! He's to be directing things, and the script will have some guidelines.

 

 
#1:
In lieu of a dependable voluntary long form judged as such by Earth's top statisticians, the Chief Statistician will inform the Minister of an alternative program for Section 22 (a) - (u) of the Act.

i.e. 

(c) health and welfare;

(d) law enforcement, the administration of justice and corrections;

(e) government and business finance;

(f) immigration and emigration;

(g) education;

(h) labour and employment;

(i) commerce with other countries;

(j) prices and the cost of living;

(k) forestry, fishing and trapping;

(l) mines, quarries and wells;

(m) manufacturing;

(n) construction;

(o) transportation, storage and communication;

(p) electric power, gas and water utilities;

(q) wholesale and retail trade;

(r) finance, insurance and real estate;

(s) public administration;

(t) community, business and personal services; and

(u) any other matters prescribed by the Minister or by the Governor in Council. 1970-71-72, c. 15, s. 21; 1976-77, c. 54, s. 74.

 

#2:
The Chief Statistician (CS) will examine the use of meta-technologies such as NAICS and United Nations industrial classifications, including more novel technologies such as ontologies, RDF, RDFS, and OWL, and all other related formatting standards.

Coding system for goods

22.1

 (1) The Chief Statistician shall establish a coding system for goods imported into and exported from Canada to enable the Chief Statistician to collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistics in relation to those goods.

#3:
The CS will facilitate the delivery of data to the Solicitor General of Canada through consultation and advisory to government departments on matters of data capture, storage, conversion and transfer.

Return of exports and imports from Customs

25.

 For the purposes of this Act and subject to section 17, the Solicitor General of Canada shall cause to be sent to the Chief Statistician returns of imports and exports into and from Canada and details of the means of transportation used therefor, in such manner and at such times as the Governor in Council may prescribe on the recommendation of the Minister and the Solicitor General of Canada. 1970-71-72, c. 15, s. 23; 1976-77, c. 28, s. 41; 2005, c. 38.

#4:

The Minister must consult the CS about ideal modes of capturing and conserving criminal statistics, including the procedures of court systems. Upon this would bear considerations about the actual proceedings, pressures and current daily practices of the courts, as relates to information. Section 26-29.

 

26.

 

 The clerk of every court or tribunal administering criminal justice or, where there is no clerk, the judge or other functionary presiding over the court or tribunal shall, at such times, in such manner and respecting such periods as the Minister may direct, fill in and transmit the schedules he receives relating to the criminal business transacted in the court or tribunal. 1970-71-72, c. 15, s. 24.

 

#5:
 The general program prescribed by the Minister (Section 21 +) appreciates the traditional pressures and evolutionary stresses on data-capturing agencies. It conceives broadly of an open program for public-serving entities to legally collect information, and to share it openly and privately, as is legal and appropriate.
 
Zones: commercial, industrial, financial, social, economic and general activities and condition of the people;

 

Statistics bureau

3.

 There shall continue to be a statistics bureau under the Minister, to be known as Statistics Canada, the duties of which are

(a) to collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistical information relating to the commercial, industrial, financial, social, economic and general activities and condition of the people;

 

#6:

To advise on the development of a secure framework for distributed information gathering based on cooperative, horizontal sharing agreements.

To outline a vigorous program for the daily, qualitative renewal of the public service's administration through re-considering the role of information communications technologies and processes of data and documents storage, business processes and their ongoing connection to program and department data sharing agreements respecting privacy and suitability.

Demonstrate collaborative work agreements that respect privacy and promote conjoined effort.

It's in the Act. It's part of the duties.

(c) says that the short form, however short, and the agricultural survey continue.

Other than that, things retreat to a register type of system, like in Belgium. But that system has its difficulties, as the linked essay argues.

The answer is to work with the full energy of the duties already assigned.

They are:

 

(b) to collaborate with departments of government in the collection, compilation and publication of statistical information, including statistics derived from the activities of those departments;

 

 

(c) to take the census of population of Canada and the census of agriculture of Canada as provided in this Act;

 

 

(d) to promote the avoidance of duplication in the information collected by departments of government; and

 

 

(e) generally, to promote and develop integrated social and economic statistics pertaining to the whole of Canada and to each of the provinces thereof and to coordinate plans for the integration of those statistics. 1970-71-72, c. 15, s. 3.

 

 

#7:

The innovation is in the earlier citation, form Section 5 (1), (2) and (3). 

Temporary employees will be used creatively and dynamically through an ongoing mix of relationships and partnerships. Section 5 gives the Minister and the Chief Statistician a full go ahead to design the temporary parameters however they see fit.

The dynamic part is that the Minister can utilize any public servant to fulfill an aspect of "the Act" or any other Act. This means a world of possibilities, challenges, dangers and novel options.

2) The Minister may, for such periods as the Minister may determine, use the services of any employee of the public service of Canada in the exercise or performance of any duty, power or function of Statistics Canada or an officer of Statistics Canada under this Act or any other Act, and any person whose services are so used shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a person employed under this Act.

Ultimately, the Minister has full designation over the programming of Statistics Canada. But collaboration is written into the Act in white.

The bureau and the CS bring forth outlines and concepts of overall programming, to be analyzed, critiqued and amended by the Minister.

Still, the Minister sets out all procedures and has full authority.

Rules and instructions

7.
 The Minister may, by order, prescribe such rules, instructions, schedules and forms as the Minister deems requisite for conducting the work and business of Statistics Canada, the collecting, compiling and publishing of statistics and other information and the taking of any census authorized by this Act. 1970-71-72, c. 15, s. 7.

  Lastly,

#8:

The Provnices

It's the longest section. There's lots of wiggle room. Compromises are already in place. The renewal of those MOUs is part of this historical transition.

In the Wake of Change

The census is about public-ity. That's why population figures have to be collected. Public-anything is related to the division of land and representation. These basic statistics make things functional, perhaps though not well-functioning. The census is public because it enables people, publics, to exercise and maintain the State through elections and correctly allotted representation. The integrity and independence of these institutions is necessary. The "control" that certain Commonwealth Cabinets attempt to assert through the powers of the Minister are "within limits" but don't necessarily excel or display wisdom. As Tony Clement testified to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, he doesn't possess the full picture. He is a politician, he says. Someone balancing interests with advice. This balancing act is not marked just by balancing. In its fullest, the Minister exercising discretion is bringing together an acute awareness of the state of things, the condition of the people, the conditions of the Government and the capabilities of a well-trained, highly professional civil service eager to render the country as healthy and well-off as possible. Awareness through public intelligence aggregation and sharing leads to more prosperous conditions.

Along with the NHS, the long form will add to the overall picture of Canadian society. But its utility won't be recognized for awhile. Its contribution will be appreciated when a robust program for internal and inter-governmental data sharing grows and can be used in tandem with other voluntary sampling. This direction of things necessarily involves a much more active Minister. In Canada, power of this type is arguably equivalent to the power of political appointees in the American White House. Whereas in Canada authority over the census has always resided with the Minister but has yet been fully asserted through direction and collaboration, the White House has always worked through the Secretary of the Department of Commerce. The White House might have common reason to more fully direct the census. Best practices are being radically redefined around the world, and the US or Canada are no exemptions.
 
The battle over the US census relates to counting people for federal electoral districts and the arrangement of voting districts. This is a much more active field in the US, but perhaps there's need or talk of also redrawing Canadian voting divisions. I'm not sure what it all involves, but there seems to be a long history of changes.

However you spin it, it's a touchy subject! Even down South. 

But up North, what's the actual plan, Minister? A shifted long form isn't it. And you know otherwise, right? So... what do you know based on Cabinet con-sensus? Out with it, lest we stir and speculate and cause confusion, as demonstrated below. Hey @TonyClement_MP, what's the big idea? We're all wondering, waiting, listening, understanding, exploring, testing, searching, seeking out some sustainable decisions. Join in!
 
Unlike in the US, Tony's not talking about re-locating power. He's talking about joining in and being a more full participant. Go for it! Otherwise people start worrying about manipulative intentions. Things turn sour quickly. Then you're not an effective institution builder. Then they try and call in different contractors, crying foul play. Then you spark mobs. Then they act on their own. Then control gets trickier. Don't wait. Better to call in reinforcements now. Spark a conversation that'll change the country. Some credit should accrue.

 

  (download)

#MashupMonday no. 1

In this graphic, I've united a few ideas/frameworks. I will follow up with a more thorough explanation shortly. For the time being....

I began with Senator Kate Lundy's three principles of Open Government. Democratizing Data. Citizen-centric Services. Participatory Government.

Then I laid on top of those three the "ecology" symbol I've been using for awhile. I usually interpret the symbol (in terms of open government) as having three aspects. Government Operations. Language. Graphics.

I associate with each aspect a value. For language, Plain Language and the plain words movement. For Graphics, I associate Good Graphics, ie imagery that is accessible and informative. For government operations, i associate the idea of "complex". 

Mashed up, these things equal:

Complex, Plain, Graphics.
Matters (Public Affairs/Government), Language, Learning.
Access, Design, Interaction (three "generic" principles of open government). 

In between each section I've inserted the principles spoken of by Lundy.

Inside the symbol:
This is the newest aspect of the mashup. I've combined ideas and symbols I've been developing relating to place-based public policy and imagined them as functional components 'inside' government with outside connections.

This is the trickier thing to conceptualize and explain. I'm going to return to this part in a little while. Gotta let things settle in. That was my first mashup Monday. Went pretty well! I guess if it didn't go well, you could call it "smashup" Monday. Something like that. Mashups won't be weekly, but hopefully a lot more often.

As a lead in to my next post on this graphic, I'll say one thing about the centre of the graphic. The connection I'm making is between the push for place-based public policy and the customization of services depending on the client's or citizen's region within Canada. I'm thinking of initiatives like ServiceOne Integrated Service Delivery paradigm, etc.

Canada and Belgium are buddies, says OECD

OECD says that Canada and Belgium both lack open government laws/acts relating to administrative procedure. What would such a policy look like?

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/35/34455306.pdf

Getting Down Under(neath) Gov 2.0

Sunday July 25th I tuned in to Gov 2.0 Radio hosted by Adriel Hampton, Steve Lunceford, and Steve Ressler. This week, their special guest was an Aussie, Senator Kate Lundy. Maybe you saw her talk in Washington at Gov 2.0 Expo? Her talk was titled, The Path to Open Government: The Pillars of Gov 2.0. She identifies three pillars. Democratizing data. Citizen-centric services. Participatory democracy.

 
 
Gov 2.0, boiled down to three basic concepts. But these aren't three parallel values. They are successive, and also concurrent. From data to democracy, Lundy's framework for Gov 2.0 represents a spectrum of development. We oscillate back and forth, each time edging closer to the front. In that sense, I guess participatory democracy might be equated with jet plane travel, as demonstrated by Hans Rosling recently. But first we've got to walk! Data needs to be prepared and shared.
 
On June 26th, I wrote a post called "What is Open Government?"  I was inspired by hearing Kate Lundy talk at the Expo. Based on everything I had absorbed on Gov 2.0 over the last year or so, I produced a graphic. I tried to place Lundy's concepts and other big ideas within a type of operational framework. As I tried to organize the graphic's elements, I came up with three concepts of my own -- Access, Design, Interaction. I abstracted the Gov 2.0 elements into more generic terms. While they lack Lundy's specificity, I think they are suitable to the longer, ongoing reconstruction efforts that face government. By creating direct parallels between broad, institutional values and the detailed goals for data, citizens, and democracy, we help prepare for more pervasive change. After the presidential or cabinet-level directives and taskforces fade, the work shifts to designing more suitable enterprise architectures, making things interoperable, and ensuring sustainability and commitment by civil servants and the public. This will require that we repeat ideas already found inside the bureaucracies. Access. Design. Interaction. 
 
These types of prolonged efforts require constant but adaptive narratives. When bright lights like Senator Lundy stand out, we know we are in the beginning of something greater. The challenge soon after becomes the spread of speakers. How do we enable a plurality of storytellers whose narratives grow from the conceptual seeds of Lundy and others? How does our productive and sustaining rhetoric become more tailored for each sector or department as they attempt to adjust and innovate?
 
I think this issue is rather serious. Because we are in early stages of Gov 2.0, the over-arching narratives are easier to shape. By searching out basic, enduring principles, people like Sen. Lundy have grouped together core concepts which will no doubt persevere in their relevance. But as the story travels further afield into each institution, some aspects might get lost. Or some aspect might be emphasized to the detriment of another. How, then, do we all remain on the same page? How do we encourage freedom in leadership and planning (for Gov 2.0 transitions) while not straying and dispersing our shared productive energy? As narratives leave the centre for society' extremities, the risk is always specialization. From common language, we often drift toward our own special forms of techno-speak. We need to resist this drift. Who, in Australia, can help?
 
 
For a language-based challenge such as Gov 2.0, Sir Ernest Gowers would have been ideal. Though he's been gone for sometime now, Gowers has been helping out Commonwealthers for many decades. His most referenced work is The Complete Plain Words. As a top-serving bureaucrat, Gowers wrote about English usage within government and between servants and the public. Without stretching our words too far, you could say that Gowers' ideas also related to citizen-centric services -- all communication was to be based on the reader, not the writer. Participatory democracy, also. Thoughtful communication would allow for dynamic interactions. Democratizing data? Gowers was a bit early for that one. His concepts have been actively studied all around the world. The latest work about his life and career was written by Australian Ann Scott. The work was titled Ernest Gowers: Plain Words and Forgotten Deeds.

Who is Ann Scott and why did she profile Gowers?

Ann Scott is now an Adjunct Professor at the University of Queensland. She's an instructor in the graduate program Governance and Public Policy. She teaches a course called Dynamics of Public Policy. Before, Ann was a servant for many years, with much of her experience in the police services realm. 

 

An excerpt from the online course outline reads:
 
The course starts by considering the basic structures of a political system and the nature of political activity inside and outside the government of the State. It then deals with the concept and practice of policy analysis before examining the stages which have been identified in the policy cycle: agenda setting, choosing policy instruments, consultation, co-ordination, implementation and evaluation. Attention will be paid to a growing body of literature which criticises this “cyclical” approach. 

At every point in the course, students will be invited to consider the relevance of their own work experience inside or outside public bureaucracies as well as the analytical literature focussed on Australian state and federal governments and specific areas of policy activity. The role of leaders, ideologies, social structures and policy communities as well as public bureaucracies will be identified and discussed in specific contexts. Students with experience outside Australia will be encouraged to report on that experience as a basis of comparison. 


Seems that Ann knows her stuff. She, too, has her frameworks. Leaders, ideologies, social structures and policy communities as well as public bureaucracies. Also Agenda setting, choosing policy instruments, consultation, co-ordination, implementation and evaluation. A course like Ann's is central to re-conceptualizing the State and the way it delivers services based on dialogue and consultation. Because Ann invites students to build on their own experiences in government, maybe Ann's course will become one of the key reflective spaces in Australia for re-imagining government. If Ann promotes a critical analysis of the "cyclical" approach, then how do conclusions build toward or away from Gov 2.0?

 
Outside of the classroom (and within), I think someone like Ann Scott can have a profound influence on the direction of things. Ann and others in the Plain Language movement understand the importance of simple, concise, and human communication. By routinely emphasizing the tenets expounded by Gowers and the Fowlers brothers, leaders like Ann help keep things together subtly. 
 
Limited vocabularies won't work in the long-term as the Gov 2.0 movement matures. Emerging leaders need to adapt the way they speak about the enduring values of democratizing data, citizen-centric services, and participatory government. Plain language helps by granting ample room to play (with words) while goading storytellers to keep it simple. Who will the storytellers be? Interns new to government but very hip to the Gov 2.0 space. Managers. Consultants. Administrative Assistants. Directors. Whoever.
 
Why did Ann Scott profile Gowers? I can't say for sure. But my guess is, she had a hunch of some sort. "This stuff will grow in its relevance." Ann's familiar with participatory service transformation. The 1998 report discusses "Partnership Policing" and the need to work with communities to solve problems. Hardly a dated report. Seems that Ann Scott was ahead of her time. 
 
Where to go from here? If I was in Australia I'd head for POLS7111. Seems as good a place as any to get things started. Who knows what will come of all these discussions and theorizing. Maybe a new course? :p
 
An excerpt from the online course outline might read:
 
The course starts by considering the basic structures of a [progressive] political system and the nature of political activity inside and outside the government of the [informational] State. It then deals with the concept and practice of policy analysis before examining the stages which have been identified in the policy cycle: [ongoing communities engagement], agenda setting, choosing policy instruments, consultation [with various publics], co-ordination, implementation and [participatory] evaluation. Attention will be paid to a growing body of literature which promotes this “ecological” approach. 
Tagged Australia OpenGov

Infrastructure Stimulus Fund Analysis by #PBO #opengov

via www2.parl.gc.ca

Projects organized according to type. From what I heard, guys over at the PBO organized all of this stuff by hand, in many instances translating analog (read: pieces of paper) into digital (read: global standard for storing government data).

Digital Economy Strategy #destrategy

As I reported earlier, over 30 people gathered at U of T in June to produce a group submission to Industry Canada's digital economy consultation. Others participated online using the wiki. In its final form, the submission was endorsed by over 70 individuals from throughout Canada.

What is a digital economy?

... a business [read: economy] with electronic production and management processes and that interacts with its partners and customers and conducts transactions through Internet and Web technologies. (Wikipedia)

If you view the Wikipedia entry, the opening sentence seems to exclude traditional aspects of the economy. If it were up to me I'd delete the first sentence and keep what I've cited. 'Guess I do have the freedom to do that. For now, I'd rather highlight its inadequacies.

The digital economy is hard to define because it depends on a re-defined "digital society." During the development of the group submission, contributors pointed out that a "digital society" encapsulates these larger transformations. It may not be Industry Canada's jurisdiction, but the discussion of a digital society is necessary. If this dialogue starts out in ways similar to the Wikipedia entry discussed above, we're in trouble. 

A digital economy is an economy that is based on electronic goods and services produced by an electronic business and traded through electronic commerce.

Based on that, we'd probably end up saying something like:

A digital society is a society that is based on electronic interchange made possible through the actions of an electronic citizenry sustained through an electronic government.

Sound appealing? Relatable? Not really. It's time to re-conceptualize society. The Government began at the right place: industry. If it stops there, it's professing what many suspect are its profane views -- that society is essentially a market. If it thinks better (-- higher) of us, it'll keep the conversation going. What Ministry/Minister's the appropriate host?

The video below is a summary of the group submission to #destrategy.

Tagged Digital Economy Videos
Tags
@mpeers
Bookmarks
Canuckistan
Other