<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Mark, I've added these comments to your thoughts into the
document. Feel free to comment in there.<br>
</p>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jNdh4_A_cIpaHqLRFOgpvAY3JSo0Ueraam39UHFOGHs/edit#heading=h.j5fvbvgl6af1">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jNdh4_A_cIpaHqLRFOgpvAY3JSo0Ueraam39UHFOGHs/edit#heading=h.j5fvbvgl6af1</a><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20/3/18 3:46 am, Mark Phillips
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:222172556.4685863.6736bd81-44ad-4293-b489-d7be6c515bfc.open-xchange@webmailox.com.au">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;">Overall there
seems to be a confusing discussion between open government and
open communities. The two are not synonymous. In order to join
the Open Government Partnership</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height:
100%;">“countries must commit to uphold the principles of open
and transparent government by endorsing the Open Government
Declaration”.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;">Signing this
declaration means the signatories are:</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height:
100%;">“committed to the principles enshrined in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Convention against
Corruption, and other applicable international instruments
related to human rights and good governance:”<a
class="sdfootnoteanc"
href="imap://cameron%2Eshorter%40gmail%2Ecom@imap.gmail.com:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E46960#sdfootnote2sym"
name="sdfootnote2anc" moz-do-not-send="true"><sup
style="line-height: 0;">2</sup></a><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;">This is not the
same as developing open source hardware/software. Nor is it the
same as an open community. It is alluding to the openness of
government itself. And yes having open communities is one
mechanism for deciding this. Technology is one mechanism for
implementing this and so is basic education.</p>
</blockquote>
Mark, your point is valid. I have only very lightly touched on the
differences between open government, open source, open data, open
...<br>
I'm attempting to be concise in order to focus on the key message of
"Governments - please get better at COLLABORATION". <br>
<br>
On 20/3/18 3:46 am, Mark Phillips wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:222172556.4685863.6736bd81-44ad-4293-b489-d7be6c515bfc.open-xchange@webmailox.com.au">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;">The emphasis in
your proposal is to hand over the development of open government
to open communities without addressing some of the fundamental
issues with open communities.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;">As you have
mentioned wikipedia in your latest iteration, lets start with
wikipedia as an example. The main issue with wikipedia is the
continuous editing of controversial pages by opposing groups.
This continuous editing extends to the level where organisations
edit their pages to highlight their positives traits and to
downplay their negative traits. This is handle by wikipedia
through locking pages and banning access to repeat offenders.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;">You have not
highlighted let alone discussed the problems business working
with open communities and a possible solution to these problems.
(volunteers working at their own pace, feature definition,
corporate deadlines, licensing, dispute resolution etc).</p>
</blockquote>
Mark, true, there are plenty of challenges involved in working with
Open Communities. You mention a couple here. I've mentioned a couple
under the section "Loving a community to death". <br>
Government does need guidelines to help with this, and I'm
suggesting that such guidelines be developed, but I feel that this
document is not the place to go to that depth of analysis.<br>
<br>
On 20/3/18 3:46 am, Mark Phillips wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:222172556.4685863.6736bd81-44ad-4293-b489-d7be6c515bfc.open-xchange@webmailox.com.au">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;">I also don't
believe that an open community will help in the sense that you
define open communities. I believe that there should be a hybrid
of corporate and open source communities such that the better
parts of each of the communities is combined to produce a much
better working environment, if you insist in open communities
working directly with the government.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Mark, as you have picked up, I've deliberately not defined how
Government should resource or interact with communities. There are
many ways it could be implemented. What I'm focusing on is that
Government should define their success criteria as "Am I
collaborating?". <br>
<br>
On 20/3/18 3:46 am, Mark Phillips wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:222172556.4685863.6736bd81-44ad-4293-b489-d7be6c515bfc.open-xchange@webmailox.com.au">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;">In your proposal
you make the statement</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height:
100%;">“By sharing our knowledge we share the profit from that
knowledge; we help reduce income disparity<a
class="sdfootnoteanc"
href="imap://cameron%2Eshorter%40gmail%2Ecom@imap.gmail.com:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E46960#sdfootnote3sym"
name="sdfootnote3anc" moz-do-not-send="true"><sup
style="line-height: 0;">3</sup></a>;”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;">This is a
blanket statement with no references nor proof that shows that
this is indeed the case. How does an open community relying on
knowledge reduce income disparity. It is not until that
knowledge is implemented is there the possibility that income
would be generated. Unles you are talking about social
income/social income disparity.</p>
</blockquote>
Mark, you make a good point here about there not being proof for
such a big statement. This topic probably needs its own essay, and
is not critical for the main point of "Governments should do better
of Collaboration".<br>
I think I'm going to need to remove this statement from this
document.<br>
<br>
On 20/3/18 3:46 am, Mark Phillips wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:222172556.4685863.6736bd81-44ad-4293-b489-d7be6c515bfc.open-xchange@webmailox.com.au">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;">While the tone
of the open letter has been toned down since my last review it
still contains a number of statements which “tell” the
government what to do. Further these statements come with no
proof nor references justifying the statements made.</p>
</blockquote>
Still working on it ...<br>
<br>
On 20/3/18 3:46 am, Mark Phillips wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:222172556.4685863.6736bd81-44ad-4293-b489-d7be6c515bfc.open-xchange@webmailox.com.au">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;"> It does not
discuss or even allude to the issues surrounding open source
communities or open source licensing.
</p>
</blockquote>
This is a level of detail that I don't think we should go into in
this high level statement.<br>
<br>
On 20/3/18 3:46 am, Mark Phillips wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:222172556.4685863.6736bd81-44ad-4293-b489-d7be6c515bfc.open-xchange@webmailox.com.au">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;"> I believe you
miss the point of both Pia’s and United States Assistant
Secretary of Defense’s papers. Neither abrogate that the
government run open source projects. They discuss how to
leverage from open source projects.</p>
</blockquote>
The point I'm going for is that Governments should assess their
success by whether they Collaborate well. Incidentally, open
communities such as open source have practices which should be
studied (in another document).<br>
<br>
On 20/3/18 3:46 am, Mark Phillips wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:222172556.4685863.6736bd81-44ad-4293-b489-d7be6c515bfc.open-xchange@webmailox.com.au">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;">This is why I
believe open standards for government interaction and data use
combined with multiple external open source communities would
achieve a better outcome for Open Source development in
Australia. Just look at the number of desktops that exist on
Linux. They all work to the same standard, are supported by open
source communities and are, to the most part, application
inter-operational.</p>
</blockquote>
Mark, you have a good point here. I realise that although I've
mentioned interoperability, I hadn't mentioned standards. (I've just
added "open standards" in a couple of places). I'm going to see if
there is an appropriate place to add a recommendation about use of
open standards.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:222172556.4685863.6736bd81-44ad-4293-b489-d7be6c515bfc.open-xchange@webmailox.com.au">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;">Defining an open
standard and then allowing open communities to evolve around
these standards provides multiple solutions in which there may
be multiple “best” solutions. At this point Not only could the
government support specific open communities but could support
multiple open source communities essentially providing the same
functionality<a class="sdfootnoteanc"
href="imap://cameron%2Eshorter%40gmail%2Ecom@imap.gmail.com:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E46960#sdfootnote4sym"
name="sdfootnote4anc" moz-do-not-send="true"><sup
style="line-height: 0;">4</sup></a>.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;">Overall the
proposal still comes across as a idealogical diatribe on “what
you must do” and “you should do it this way” rather than a
method of how open government may collaborate with open
communities.</p>
</blockquote>
Thanks for your feedback Mark,<br>
You have made some good points, and while I'm not sure this is the
right level of document to include all your points, I want to take a
couple of them on board.<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier, Learnosity
Open Technologies Consultant
M +61 (0) 419 142 254</pre>
</body>
</html>