<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi folks,</p>
<p>Correct, this paper just focuses a subset of the participation
section of Open Government National Action Plan (section 5.2 [1]).
This section happened to be central to many of Malcomb Turnbull's
Open Government agenda points when announced [2]</p>
<p><i>"I'm a great believer in being much more global in our
approach. Governments have historically been much less global in
their research, in their awareness of policy responses than
businesses, yet we're all dealing with the same problems, pretty
much. ... We want to break down silos, break down all of the
inertia that comes from empire building, so that citizens or
businesses will have a seamless, straightforward way of dealing
with government -- federal, state, or local."</i><br>
</p>
<p>Yet, this problem has been hard to solve for Open Government, has
huge potential value to be gained if solved, and I believe us
folks in the Open Source world are best place to help solve it.
This has been where I've been focusing my energy.<br>
</p>
<p>Mark, OSIA,<br>
Good to hear that you are tackling other areas of the OGNAP
priorities. There are some important topics to cover in there. I
wish you all the best.<br>
</p>
[1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://ogpau.pmc.gov.au/australias-first-open-government-national-action-plan-2016-18/commitments/v-public-participation-1">https://ogpau.pmc.gov.au/australias-first-open-government-national-action-plan-2016-18/commitments/v-public-participation-1</a><br>
[2]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.zdnet.com/article/turnbull-wants-transformation-office-to-be-shared-globally/">http://www.zdnet.com/article/turnbull-wants-transformation-office-to-be-shared-globally/</a><br>
<br>
Cameron<br>
<br>
P.S. A minor clarification: I feel I might be getting misunderstood
based on quote below. I'm very keen to collaborate with all parties,
especially government. <br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/3/18 12:30 pm, Mark Phillips
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:767899603.1282648.82d3dbfb-8f76-4593-96b5-4e7af875ec3e.open-xchange@webmailox.com.au">
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<p>Hi Cameron,<br>
<br>
After consideration of the discussions held during the
face-to-face OGNAP panel, OSIA feels the open letter does not
address the intent of OGNAP. Further OSIA feels that the tone
is not suitable for a government submission nor is the lack of
intent to collaborate with government acceptable within the
community.</p>
<p>As stated in previous emails the main points of concern during
the face-to-face were in the areas of corruption, privacy,
transparency, and audibility. Your open letter does not address
these concerns to any meaningful degree.</p>
<p>So while OSIA does not feel comfortable signing your open
letter, OSIA will be making a submission targeting the above
OGNAP concerns.</p>
<p>Mark Phillips<br>
</p>
<p>Chairman<br>
</p>
<p>Open Source Industry Australia.</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 26 March 2018 at 10:02 Arjen Lentz
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:arjen.lentz@gmail.com"><arjen.lentz@gmail.com></a> wrote:<br>
<br>
<div dir="auto">
<div>Stuart, Cameron<br>
<br>
<div class="ox-f85cf07a92-gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Mon., 26 Mar. 2018, 06:49 Stuart
Guthrie, <<a href="mailto:stuart@polonious.com.au"
moz-do-not-send="true">stuart@polonious.com.au</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>1. I was always told 'should' is a bad word to
use for effective communication. I have no
recommendations as to how to change this, not being
a particularly good word smith.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">One can use a construct with "It
recommended/best practice", referring to studies or other
respected sources.<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">For instance, when discussing sanity in
password rules, the NIST report can be referenced.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="ox-f85cf07a92-gmail_quote">
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div> <br>
</div>
2. One thing that Government will find lacking in this
document is how they handle long term support with
reliable providers. They want new sustainable stuff
but they want reliability up to 5 9's and instant
access to people to solve production and project
problems. RH fill this hole to some degree but in
order for a project to move forward, fix production
bugs and continually pay down technical debt, support
income is needed along with long term contracts to
enable the provider to help in the way Govt expect.
This is likely not the same organisation(s) as the
core devs although perhaps that is the model. I've
heard a number of govt supplier pitches and 'cradle to
grave' support comes up a lot. Perhaps this is not
relevant to this paper, however, without mention of
this, it may not fly as well as you would hope.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I need to dissect this. We have to distinguish
between objective and strategy.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">This is the govt's stated objective:</div>
<div dir="auto">"<span style="font-family: sans-serif;">want
reliability up to 5 9's and instant access to people to
solve production and project problems."</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">Do the
govt supplier pitches address this in real terms, or
merely on paper? I would suggest that it is, in practice,
mainly a paper story within a legal framework.</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The govt suppliers address the stated need
using a framework that govt understands (or even
specifically requires), which is a legal one.</div>
<div dir="auto">We tech geeks have to appreciate that while
this may not yield technically acceptable outcomes or
reliability, however it does yield govt accepted outcomes.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So the framework is not a technical one.
Changing the framework might be desirable, but not currently
achievable.</div>
<div dir="auto">RH indeed talks the language that govt and
other corporates understand, which is why RH is accepted in
that space.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The approach towards govt is legal and process
based, and possibly best kept at some distance from
developers, to avoid frustration. RH of course employs
people in both "groups", but it's important to realise that
RH purposely has different faces to different audiences.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I'm not convinced that each viable project can
maintain such a structure, so corps like RH play a very
important role in the overall ecosystem.</div>
<div dir="auto">Thus, I think such aggregation is key to
gaining acceptance and adoption.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Do we talk with RH or contemplate another
company, is the latter even viable. Are there other
candidates? For instance openSUSE... </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Regards,</div>
<div dir="auto">Arjen.</div>
<div dir="auto"> <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier, Learnosity
Open Technologies Consultant
M +61 (0) 419 142 254</pre>
</body>
</html>