[Osia-members] Draft ready: What could Open Government learn from us Open Technology folks?
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Mon Mar 26 22:04:04 AEDT 2018
Correct, this paper just focuses a subset of the participation section
of Open Government National Action Plan (section 5.2 ). This section
happened to be central to many of Malcomb Turnbull's Open Government
agenda points when announced 
/"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."/
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.
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.
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,
On 26/3/18 12:30 pm, Mark Phillips wrote:
> Hi Cameron,
> 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.
> 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.
> So while OSIA does not feel comfortable signing your open letter, OSIA
> will be making a submission targeting the above OGNAP concerns.
> Mark Phillips
> Open Source Industry Australia.
>> On 26 March 2018 at 10:02 Arjen Lentz <arjen.lentz at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Stuart, Cameron
>> On Mon., 26 Mar. 2018, 06:49 Stuart Guthrie, <stuart at polonious.com.au
>> <mailto:stuart at polonious.com.au>> wrote:
>> 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.
>> One can use a construct with "It recommended/best practice",
>> referring to studies or other respected sources.
>> For instance, when discussing sanity in password rules, the NIST
>> report can be referenced.
>> 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.
>> I need to dissect this. We have to distinguish between objective and
>> This is the govt's stated objective:
>> "want reliability up to 5 9's and instant access to people to solve
>> production and project problems."
>> 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.
>> The govt suppliers address the stated need using a framework that
>> govt understands (or even specifically requires), which is a legal one.
>> We tech geeks have to appreciate that while this may not yield
>> technically acceptable outcomes or reliability, however it does yield
>> govt accepted outcomes.
>> So the framework is not a technical one. Changing the framework might
>> be desirable, but not currently achievable.
>> RH indeed talks the language that govt and other corporates
>> understand, which is why RH is accepted in that space.
>> 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.
>> 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
>> Thus, I think such aggregation is key to gaining acceptance and adoption.
>> Do we talk with RH or contemplate another company, is the latter even
>> viable. Are there other candidates? For instance openSUSE...
Technology Demystifier, Learnosity
Open Technologies Consultant
M +61 (0) 419 142 254
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Osia-members