Comments on: The need for – and risks of – government transparency http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/ by Jeff Jarvis Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:15:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: David http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-406525 David Fri, 25 Dec 2009 14:57:54 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-406525 Dean I couldn't agree with you more. It is about us. WE are government. They are only representatives. And we can help them do their jobs. As a result of transparency initiatives citizens are able to vote on the same bills in Congress and directly message your representatives. Please see www.votetocracy.com. Dean
I couldn’t agree with you more. It is about us. WE are government. They are only representatives. And we can help them do their jobs. As a result of transparency initiatives citizens are able to vote on the same bills in Congress and directly message your representatives. Please see http://www.votetocracy.com.

]]> By: H00b1e, the Telescope http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-398097 H00b1e, the Telescope Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:48:18 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-398097 "> How many people in the US actually read a bill in it’s entirety before it’s signed into law? " Well, there is opencongress.org and from their website you can find links to a host of similar Gov't 2.0 projects. It is unlikely that everyone would have time to read and comment on every bill (Honestly, do legislators even do that?), but those interested could use word tags to track bills. If bills were hyperlinked and cobbled from discrete portions, citizens could poll-vote on the portion that gets added. Citizens who track word tags would be alerted when they appear in new bills and comment and poll-vote on that portion. A "mass of niches" guarding the law. “> How many people in the US actually read a bill in it’s entirety before it’s signed into law? ”

Well, there is opencongress.org and from their website you can find links to a host of similar Gov’t 2.0 projects.

It is unlikely that everyone would have time to read and comment on every bill (Honestly, do legislators even do that?), but those interested could use word tags to track bills.

If bills were hyperlinked and cobbled from discrete portions, citizens could poll-vote on the portion that gets added. Citizens who track word tags would be alerted when they appear in new bills and comment and poll-vote on that portion.

A “mass of niches” guarding the law.

]]> By: paul http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-397559 paul Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:57:21 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-397559 Here's a video of your talk at PdF http://neuronspark.com/videos/jeff-jarvis/ Here’s a video of your talk at PdF
http://neuronspark.com/videos/jeff-jarvis/

]]> By: vin bhat http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-397469 vin bhat Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:14:11 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-397469 Achieving 100% transparency is definitely the goal, but it will be a long battle. Government bureaucrats are to a certain degree like recorded music executives - they have a nice racket going and there's not incentive to change it. As phase I, I do think a positive simple, positive approach can be taken to make line item budgets available on line for people to view, comment and discuss. As taxpayers, people should have a right to see how they money is being spent in a very user friendly, web interface at the federal, state and local level. Sure, one person may flip about funds going to the arts in a recession while another may ardently defend such action. This is nothing about success or failure; we've elected these officials and given them the authority to make these decisions on our behalf. The key is that any discussion / argument about spending is that it's open and any one can see both sides of the debate. Phase II becomes how policy and decision making is actually influenced in near-real time by these community discussions. It should also map the Web of relationships among people inside the government and the parties the government provides business across all sectors - defense, auto, aviation, etc. The other thing that Shirky talks about in his book is "lowering transaction costs of participation". If it's made easier to participate in government and it impacts something that most people care about (money, taxes), I think we'll see a lot more than 2% of the population respond and participate. Achieving 100% transparency is definitely the goal, but it will be a long battle. Government bureaucrats are to a certain degree like recorded music executives – they have a nice racket going and there’s not incentive to change it. As phase I, I do think a positive simple, positive approach can be taken to make line item budgets available on line for people to view, comment and discuss. As taxpayers, people should have a right to see how they money is being spent in a very user friendly, web interface at the federal, state and local level. Sure, one person may flip about funds going to the arts in a recession while another may ardently defend such action. This is nothing about success or failure; we’ve elected these officials and given them the authority to make these decisions on our behalf. The key is that any discussion / argument about spending is that it’s open and any one can see both sides of the debate. Phase II becomes how policy and decision making is actually influenced in near-real time by these community discussions. It should also map the Web of relationships among people inside the government and the parties the government provides business across all sectors – defense, auto, aviation, etc. The other thing that Shirky talks about in his book is “lowering transaction costs of participation”. If it’s made easier to participate in government and it impacts something that most people care about (money, taxes), I think we’ll see a lot more than 2% of the population respond and participate.

]]> By: Andy Freeman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-397464 Andy Freeman Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:44:32 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-397464 > How many people in the US actually read a bill in it’s entirety before it’s signed into law? It turns out that they pass bills that haven't even been put together in their entirety. > If that was a collaborative process that needed the input of even more people If you don't have time to let me know what you're doing on my behalf, excuse me for suspecting that you're not actually acting on my behalf but in your own self-interest. Especially since that's what's been happening. > Therefore, there comes a time that we have to maintain a bit of trust and opacity just to simply get shit done. like the trains running on time? > How many people in the US actually read a bill in it’s entirety before it’s signed into law?

It turns out that they pass bills that haven’t even been put together in their entirety.

> If that was a collaborative process that needed the input of even more people

If you don’t have time to let me know what you’re doing on my behalf, excuse me for suspecting that you’re not actually acting on my behalf but in your own self-interest. Especially since that’s what’s been happening.

> Therefore, there comes a time that we have to maintain a bit of trust and opacity just to simply get shit done.

like the trains running on time?

]]> By: geo geller http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-397458 geo geller Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:04:43 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-397458 i was in the audience at both jeff pulvers SocCOMM and PDF and was struck by you inviting the audience to your google restaurant and to google gov and in both instances it made me think about a society built on trust not only serves its people it also asks its people to serve it too - we need to reinvent ourselves and to stop this top down management by fear syndrome if we are to escape the revolving door i enjoyed the running around the audience but thought you were more like phill donahue be you geo i was in the audience at both jeff pulvers SocCOMM and PDF and was struck by you inviting the audience to your google restaurant and to google gov and in both instances it made me think about a society built on trust not only serves its people it also asks its people to serve it too – we need to reinvent ourselves and to stop this top down management by fear syndrome if we are to escape the revolving door

i enjoyed the running around the audience but thought you were more like phill donahue

be you

geo

]]> By: Jay Parkinson http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-397450 Jay Parkinson Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:42:31 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-397450 Hey Jeff... I was speaking today in London at the Guardian Activate Summit. Wish you were around to hear the British perspective on this and provide your own... However, during all these discussions about people demanding that government information be made public, I couldn't help think the following: If democracy is the best system to maintain status quo, hyperdemocracy would be even worse. How many people in the US actually read a bill in it's entirety before it's signed into law? If that was a collaborative process that needed the input of even more people, we'd all be stuck bickering with failed attempts to satisfy everyone. Therefore, there comes a time that we have to maintain a bit of trust and opacity just to simply get shit done. Hey Jeff…
I was speaking today in London at the Guardian Activate Summit. Wish you were around to hear the British perspective on this and provide your own…

However, during all these discussions about people demanding that government information be made public, I couldn’t help think the following:

If democracy is the best system to maintain status quo, hyperdemocracy would be even worse.

How many people in the US actually read a bill in it’s entirety before it’s signed into law? If that was a collaborative process that needed the input of even more people, we’d all be stuck bickering with failed attempts to satisfy everyone. Therefore, there comes a time that we have to maintain a bit of trust and opacity just to simply get shit done.

]]> By: Tex Lovera http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-397439 Tex Lovera Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:41:33 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-397439 I'm all for transparency in governemnt. As for "getting people involved", well, I'll reserve judgment on just what percentage of folks choose to "get involved" vs. just go along with the flow (Hell, what percentage of us even vote now??). But governemnt, as it exists today (and probably as it has always existed), is all about power. Which elected officials (much less the whole class of appointed civil servants) are going to want to share their power? I believe, unfortunately, that the toughest part of this whole process will be electing the right people to begin this process. I do believe that federalism must be emphasized; the more local you can make the process, the better. Sorry if I come off as pessimistic, but Utopia is a hard place to get to... I’m all for transparency in governemnt. As for “getting people involved”, well, I’ll reserve judgment on just what percentage of folks choose to “get involved” vs. just go along with the flow (Hell, what percentage of us even vote now??).

But governemnt, as it exists today (and probably as it has always existed), is all about power. Which elected officials (much less the whole class of appointed civil servants) are going to want to share their power? I believe, unfortunately, that the toughest part of this whole process will be electing the right people to begin this process. I do believe that federalism must be emphasized; the more local you can make the process, the better.
Sorry if I come off as pessimistic, but Utopia is a hard place to get to…

]]> By: Gov Transparency Alone Will Never Be Enough « Insomniactive http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-397429 Gov Transparency Alone Will Never Be Enough « Insomniactive Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:06:00 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-397429 [...] Transparency Alone Will Never Be Enough As Jeff Jarvis posts, It’s an exciting time for government transparency advocates, (”government in the [...] [...] Transparency Alone Will Never Be Enough As Jeff Jarvis posts, It’s an exciting time for government transparency advocates, (”government in the [...]

]]> By: Steven http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-397426 Steven Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:30:38 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-397426 Post deleted? Post deleted?

]]> By: Andy Freeman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-397418 Andy Freeman Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:08:27 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-397418 Speak for yourself. I'm not part of the problem. It's not my fault that govt pisses away money on the "good things" that you want. Folks argue for govt spending to do good things. However, the money gets spent but said good things don't happen. If the advocates of such spending can't make it work, there's no justification for the spending. Speak for yourself.

I’m not part of the problem. It’s not my fault that govt pisses away money on the “good things” that you want.

Folks argue for govt spending to do good things. However, the money gets spent but said good things don’t happen. If the advocates of such spending can’t make it work, there’s no justification for the spending.

]]> By: Bob M http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-397405 Bob M Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:40:19 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-397405 "In other words, we need beta government" This is one of the arguments for federalism, and for as much as practicable to be done at local levels. A huge centralized government with untried programs enacted for everybody is inherently risky (as we are about to see, again). “In other words, we need beta government” This is one of the arguments for federalism, and for as much as practicable to be done at local levels. A huge centralized government with untried programs enacted for everybody is inherently risky (as we are about to see, again).

]]> By: marcus http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-397404 marcus Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:37:53 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-397404 "we need beta government: the ability of government to try things, to open up its process, to invite us in, to collaborate." I agree on this. Once and for all, we need a government that would collaborate with the people and is not afraid to fail because if they do fail they can always go back and turn to the people since we are still all part of it..who know's this might turn out to be a great team work but ofcourse its never gonna be easy but let's just continue to hope. By the way,i have found a link that everyone can also check on your blog and you can publish your news for free, such as this article you have. Im actually fund of reading blogs and articles and i think you should check it out. Anyway, nice post! http://www.freepressreleasecenter.com/ Marcus “we need beta government: the ability of government to try things, to open up its process, to invite us in, to collaborate.” I agree on this. Once and for all, we need a government that would collaborate with the people and is not afraid to fail because if they do fail they can always go back and turn to the people since we are still all part of it..who know’s this might turn out to be a great team work but ofcourse its never gonna be easy but let’s just continue to hope. By the way,i have found a link that everyone can also check on your blog and you can publish your news for free, such as this article you have. Im actually fund of reading blogs and articles and i think you should check it out. Anyway, nice post!

http://www.freepressreleasecenter.com/

Marcus

]]> By: isaac david http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-397395 isaac david Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:51:35 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-397395 Totally agree. I think politians are so afraid of saying the wrong thing these days, we hardly hear anything from them . Politicians should not feel scared to change their opinion about a issue. Isn't that the natural process Totally agree. I think politians are so afraid of saying the wrong thing these days, we hardly hear anything from them . Politicians should not feel scared to change their opinion about a issue. Isn’t that the natural process

]]> By: Andy Freeman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-397378 Andy Freeman Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:20:11 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-397378 > * We have to give permission to fail. In speaking with government people about What Would Google Do?, I’ve learned how much they fear failure and how cautious that makes them. Without the license to fail, government will never experiment, never open up, and never be collaborative. You can't be given permission to fail, you take it. "Permission to fail" requires a govt that doesn't defend to the death each and every budget item, program, and so on. That mentality isn't coming from the people, it's coming from govt. Like it or not, one solution is "gotcha". When the costs of protecting stupidity become higher than the benefits of protecting it, they'll stop. They'll start looking around and ask "is this the sort of thing that I want to defend?" > * We have to give permission to fail. In speaking with government people about What Would Google Do?, I’ve learned how much they fear failure and how cautious that makes them. Without the license to fail, government will never experiment, never open up, and never be collaborative.

You can’t be given permission to fail, you take it.

“Permission to fail” requires a govt that doesn’t defend to the death each and every budget item, program, and so on. That mentality isn’t coming from the people, it’s coming from govt.

Like it or not, one solution is “gotcha”. When the costs of protecting stupidity become higher than the benefits of protecting it, they’ll stop. They’ll start looking around and ask “is this the sort of thing that I want to defend?”

]]> By: links for 2009-06-30 - Kevin Bondelli’s Youth Vote Blog http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-397376 links for 2009-06-30 - Kevin Bondelli’s Youth Vote Blog Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:30:32 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-397376 [...] The need for – and risks of – government transparency « BuzzMachine [...] [...] The need for – and risks of – government transparency « BuzzMachine [...]

]]> By: rjh http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-397374 rjh Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:12:21 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-397374 What you are asking for is not "beta", it's good management or kaizen. The press, public, and politicians are notoriously terrible managers, so achieving this will not be easy. All three thrive on revenge, and have problems with reasonable expectations. The kaizen process tries to put some structure around permission to fail. You are not allowed to be a policeman and spray a crowd with a machine gun for crowd control. That kind of failure is not acceptable. The kaizen process asks that change be based on study and understanding, permits a small change, requires that the results be analyzed and published, and the change removed if it turns out to have been the wrong change. This process works extremely well and has decades of demonstrated success. It is extraordinarily hard to put in place in government. Have you ever tried to end any government program, no matter how small? It is a nightmare effort. The cast iron rice bowl effect is very real. This is why things like the military base closure process had to be structured the way it is. I have seen this work only on rare occasions in government. For a while DARPA had some good management. They had a semi-official goal that somewhere between 70 and 90% of projects should fail, be cancelled, or have no follow-on. They were a research organization. More than 90% failure meant that they were not making reasonable evaluations of success. Less than 70% failure meant that the research was not taking enough risks and not really advanced research. The DARPA process fell apart when the dollars involved became substantial. The iron rice bowl took over. What you are asking for is not “beta”, it’s good management or kaizen. The press, public, and politicians are notoriously terrible managers, so achieving this will not be easy. All three thrive on revenge, and have problems with reasonable expectations.

The kaizen process tries to put some structure around permission to fail. You are not allowed to be a policeman and spray a crowd with a machine gun for crowd control. That kind of failure is not acceptable. The kaizen process asks that change be based on study and understanding, permits a small change, requires that the results be analyzed and published, and the change removed if it turns out to have been the wrong change. This process works extremely well and has decades of demonstrated success.

It is extraordinarily hard to put in place in government. Have you ever tried to end any government program, no matter how small? It is a nightmare effort. The cast iron rice bowl effect is very real. This is why things like the military base closure process had to be structured the way it is.

I have seen this work only on rare occasions in government. For a while DARPA had some good management. They had a semi-official goal that somewhere between 70 and 90% of projects should fail, be cancelled, or have no follow-on. They were a research organization. More than 90% failure meant that they were not making reasonable evaluations of success. Less than 70% failure meant that the research was not taking enough risks and not really advanced research.

The DARPA process fell apart when the dollars involved became substantial. The iron rice bowl took over.

]]> By: Paul http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-397372 Paul Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:39:09 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-397372 While I agree with you that government transparency shouldn't be about 'gotcha'. It initially will end up being that, because all the inefficiencies currently in the system and the little 'perks' and 'liberties' government currently takes will be exposed with transparency. While I agree with you that government transparency shouldn’t be about ‘gotcha’. It initially will end up being that, because all the inefficiencies currently in the system and the little ‘perks’ and ‘liberties’ government currently takes will be exposed with transparency.

]]> By: Web Media Daily – Tues. June 30, 2009 | Reinventing Yourself... http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-397361 Web Media Daily – Tues. June 30, 2009 | Reinventing Yourself... Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:58:44 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-397361 [...] The need for – and risks of – government transparency …BuzzMachine [...] [...] The need for – and risks of – government transparency …BuzzMachine [...]

]]> By: Dean http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/30/the-need-for-and-risks-of-government-transparency/#comment-397360 Dean Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:58:03 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=4941#comment-397360 "What if we were able to help government do its job?" If we don't do this we won't be able to do the other things. Once we see that we are part of the problem we can also become part of the solution. After all it is about us. “What if we were able to help government do its job?” If we don’t do this we won’t be able to do the other things. Once we see that we are part of the problem we can also become part of the solution. After all it is about us.

]]>