Posts
As some might already know, I was selected as one of 'Top 10 Who Are Changing the World of Internet and Politics', in PoliticsOnline and the World eDemocracy Forum's 11th annual awards.
Senator Kate Lundy was also selected, and you can find her press release here.
It is rare to have two Australians receive such a prestigious international award - even more so as this award is barely known in Australia, but is globally held in high regard.
I was nominated and selected on the basis of this blog, eGovAU, not my work activities, however to my knowledge this is the first time an Australian public servant has received this award - and, for that matter, the first time an elected Australian representative has received it.
As a result I've decided to take next week off and attend the World eGov Forum in Paris as a guest.
It looks to be a fantastic event.
I'll try to liveblog, or at least tweet the event and share what I learn with as broad a base of Australian public servants as possible.
I'll also try to maintain my listing of Groggate articles.
So au revoir in advance!
(and to the burglars out there, yes I have a housesitter)
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Heading to Paris - Top 10 Who Are Changing the World of Internet and Politics | Tweet |
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
In the noise of #Groggate, don't forget those silenced | Tweet |
I've been tracking the discussion on the outing of Greg Jericho as author of the Grog's Gamut blog by The Australian journalist James Massola.
In the last seven days there have been over 100 posts, articles and interviews and nearly 2,000 tweets on the topic - discussing freedom of speech, anonymity, media power and public interest.
Few have mentioned one of the first claims made by The Australian;
"The prolific blogger shows a strong preference for the ALP, despite the Public Service code of conduct stating that "the APS is apolitical, performing its functions in an impartial and professional manner"."Grog disputed this in Spartacus no more, his final post last Monday before falling silent.
Whether Grog's voice remains silent is up to him and his employer - his Department and behind that the Australian Public Service. It is not up to the media or bloggers.
Across the world many talented public servants operate blogs. There are firm roots in other western democracies such as Britain, Canada, the US and even New Zealand.
Groggate is a challenge not only to broad freedom of speech in Australia - potentially silencing anyone who believes their employers may have concerns over their words - but also challenges the public service to reconsider what Australian public servants may and may not do.
There are hundreds of thousands of intelligent and educated professionals who choose to work for Commonwealth, State and local governments across Australia. They serve the governments of the day diligently, as mature adults most are fully capable of separating their work performance from their personal views (and they all vote).
How many of these intelligent and potentially influential voices will now choose to remain silent rather than face the scrutiny - both public and internal - that Grog is facing?
If Grog continues writing, it will be at the permission of his employer, potentially under greater internal and external scrutiny.
If he stops writing - due to personal reasons or the level of controversy - a thousand other public servants may not develop the courage to start.
How much public sector experience and diversity has been lost to our public debates due to Grog's outing?
We'll never know.
Friday, October 01, 2010
How to avoid turning Gov 2.0 initiatives into 'creepy treehouses' | Tweet |
I thought I'd share a post brought to my attention by Geoff Mason via the Online Communicators Forum group in LinkedIn
Written by Jared Stein at Flexknowlogy, Defining "Creepy Treehouse" explores the pitfalls when an organisation creates an online social environment.
The article defines the term "Creepy Treehouse" in several ways, including as the following:
n. Any institutionally-created, operated, or controlled environment in which participants are lured in either by mimicking pre-existing open or naturally formed environments, or by force, through a system of punishments or rewardsIn other words, an artificial community may not be real enough to attract and maintain a community - it may have too many or arbitrary rules, expect and reward unrealistic behaviours or simply be designed to advertise (shout) at people rather than foster community engagement.
Such institutional environments are often seen as more artificial in their construction and usage, and typically compete with pre-existing systems, environments, or applications. creepy treehouses also have an aspect of closed-ness, where activity within is hidden from the outside world, and may not be easily transferred from the environment by the participants.
How can these types of issues be avoided - particularly given the governance required by the public sector?
One solution is to partner with robust existing online communities. This approach allows a government agency to participate without having to take on responsibilities such as developing the systems and the community, attracting and empowering participants or moderating and guiding behaviours. Certainly an agency needs to be careful about which existing communities it partners with, however there are many long-standing well managed communities that could be viable options.
A second approach is to partner on the creation of a community, funding an external organisation to develop a community that the agency can participate in. This also outsources much of the governance and control issues, reducing the agency's overheads in these areas. It is important to be very careful about the selection of the organisation that will create and manage the community as while many will claim they can achieve this, there are in reality very few organisations with the skills, experience, networks and capabilities to do so.
If, however, the agency has no choice but to create the community, it is important to be as transparency about governance and as even-handed, consistent and as hands-off as possible in its operation. While an agency can seed a community with content it needs to ensure that there are tools and incentives that encourage the community to generate the bulk of the content and interactions themselves. President Obama's MyBarackObama website is an excellent example of this, as the site allowed participants to form communities, create, share and distribute information and largely run their virtual lives within the community without seeing virtual police on every corner.
Perhaps that is the best analogy for an agency-run community - it needs to run like a western democracy without the elections. People are free to go about their business as they please, within the laws of their community. There are no bureaucrats and officials scrutinising their every move.
Surely a government agency can justify managing an online community in the same way our government manages our nation - treating the members as citizens, not serfs.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Listing Australia's government-run Facebook and YouTube pages - I need your help | Tweet |
Similar to my listing of twitter accounts from Australian Federal, State and local government agencies, I'm attempting to put together a listing of Australia's government-run Facebook pages and YouTube channels.
This is a big job and I'd appreciate your help.
If your agency operates one or more Facebook pages or YouTube channels, or you are aware of any that are operated by other agencies, please either add them as a comment below (feel free to be anonymous) or tweet or email me the details.
I am interested in any that are operated by a Australian Federal, State or local government agency or other publicly funded body.
Please pass on this post to your colleagues. Having a list of the social media channels used by government agencies helps other agencies build the case to use them for their own needs.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
LobbyLens seeking funding - open government outside the public sector | Tweet |
I believe that one of the major shortcomings in Australia is the lack of financial support outside the public sector for open government initiatives.
The UK has the Hansard Society, the US has the Sunlight Foundation - but what does Australia have?
Granted there is the embryonic OpenAustralia Foundation, a registered charity devoted to open government. However overall it appears to me that Australia doesn't provide the level of financial support that we see for organisations with similar transparency goals in other mature democracies.
LobbyLens, one of the applications developed for the Gov 2.0 Taskforce's Mashup Australia Competition last year, is seeking $148,000 in funding to turn it into a full-blown, maintained service supporting open government in Australia.
In Club Troppo, the post Life for LobbyLens? says that Margaret Simons, freelance journalist, board member of Crikey and driving force behind the Swinburne University Public Interest Journalism Foundation has taken on revamping LobbyLens and making it publicly available through the Public Interest Journalism Foundation.
LobbyLens, which was built in less than 24 hours during Govhack in 2009, uses 12 separate publicly available databases to provide a picture of the connections between lobbyists, ministers, departments and successful tenderers. It offers a unique view on the lobbying of Australian government that is useful for both journalists and interested citizens.
The tool is also of interest to public servants who need to understand the connections between organisations for their decision-making processes.
