All posts in the topic Change.gov launches online discussion around healthcare (Short link)

From: Tim Bonnemann Date: Nov 26 07:31 UTC Short link

Hi,

Today on Change.gov (the official website of president-elect Obama), the
transition team launched an online discussion.  The first topic centers around
healthcare.  They ask:

  What worries you most about the healthcare system in our country?
  http://change.gov/page/content/discusshealthcare

The site uses Intensedebate (http://intensedebate.com), which -- at a basic
level -- is a threaded discussion forum (with a few extra features).

866 comments have been posted as of this writing.

How would you rate this in terms of process quality?  I'm already seeing a
number of issues (overwhelming amounts of content, poor signal-to-noise ratio,
lack of focus, lack of good listening etc.).  Any recommendations for the
incoming administration this group could come up with?

Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
    

Tim

From: Brian Sullivan Date: Nov 27 19:04 UTC Short link

Hans,

Which systems do you have in mind "which can build collaborative results
in a quality a us-presedential web-forum should guarantee."

Brian

Hans Hagedorn wrote:
> It's a hard task for change.gov. There are systems out there which can handle
the amount of contributions a us-presidential web-forum can expect. And there
are systems out there which can build collaborative results in a quality a
us-presedential web-forum should guarantee. But I am not aware of a system,
which is able to deliver both... at least not yet.
    

>
> Hans
>
>
>

From: Brian Sullivan Date: Nov 27 20:48 UTC Short link

Excellent points Christoforos.

One thing I think we have to keep in mind is that the systems that are
put in place must be truly independent and bipartisan. I think many
people might look at change.gov as an extension of MyBarack.com and
consider it a highly partisan operation. When their ideas are not
recognized, as will be the case for nearly every idea that is submitted,
their belief will be reinforced. As some people come to view it as
partisan they will drop out and accelerate the balkanization.

While the US government should certainly promote a collaborative online
environment to engage citizens, I don't think that anything it can do
will realize the bulk of our expectations and possibilities.  Any
government will always be political and have to contend with political
and other forces that will seek to diminish true organic change. Citizen
input that is filtered through government sponsored systems will always
be less robust than a truly independent system. The most important
changes wanted by the citizens are likely to fall outside of the
acceptable bounds dictated not only by the specific circumstances of an
issue, but also the political "realities" that a government decides it
cannot ignore.

I believe that true change will require very robust public support
founded on common interest. A scrupulously non-partisan and transparent
system that helps citizens develop, promote, and communicate their ideas
is essential. It is also essential that this system remain independent
of the system that has the power to actually implement change
(government agencies). If they are not independent, the fairness and
effectiveness of the former(tools and spaces) will be judged by the
outcomes of the latter (agencies). It will be too easy to doubt the
process when I don't get me desired result. Obviously not everyone can
get their desired result in an all-in-one system like change.gov.
However, if citizens can understand and use the process to raise their
voice and their concerns - and maybe then plug it into an agency, there
is a much better chance that they will see their success in organizing
and voicing their desire, even if they don't gain agency action this
time around.

This leads me to the final thought which is that significant change only
occurs when a groundswell of support arises in the republic. Government
is mostly reactive. And when it becomes proactive it opens itself to all
manner of legitimate as well as absurd attack from special interests and
cliques. Popular support must be present to defend and fortify proactive
change. When the Clinton administration tried to improve the health care
system we got warnings of socialism and Harry and Louise. If there was
organized popular support we may have gotten, and may yet, get a much
better outcome. But it has to be organic popular support, not something
engineered from the white house which will invoke fears of a cult of
personality, and in the wrong hands lead to a demagoguery.

yes WE can!
    

Brian


Christoforos Korakas wrote:
> Thanks for sharing
>
> I have already mailed them some weeks ago (who knows where these mails
> go...) saying that they are basically taking a very "light" approach to
> engaging the citizens...
>
> I cannot believe that an administration that has raised that much hope for
> change having used extensively and apparently comprehending the web world,
> acts like that ....
>
> Either they have technology I don't know of, or they are just kidding
> people...
>
> What are they going to do with thousands of extensive comments by citizens?
> Are they going to read it? are they going to make out something out of it ?
> are they going to respond on the matter and not in a generic way to all
> those who have wrote?
>
> No one told them that people do not generally have the time nor habit to
> talk to government, and that frustrating them now is a BIG mistake?
>
> I am sure that if any one had asked or given the possibility to the
> edemocracy community both in the US Europe and the rest of the word (we are
> all online after all) to actively contribute to finding a solution and had
> provided the means to implement it ... we could have come up with something
> much more efficient advancing both the Change idea and eDemocracy that
> really lacks tools like that ...
>
> The big issue for all of us is how to bring about and then effectively deal
> with Massive participation ...
>
> I hope the US is not going to waste a golden opportunity it has with massive
> will for contributions from citizens ....
>
> It is not too late, but please !! tell them to start giving some thought to
> what you do and use the expertise!!
>
> Best
>
> Christoforos
>
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Hans Hagedorn <hagedorn@zebralog.com>wrote:
>
>
>> It's a hard task for change.gov. There are systems out there which can
>> handle the amount of contributions a us-presidential web-forum can expect.
>> And there are systems out there which can build collaborative results in a
>> quality a us-presedential web-forum should guarantee. But I am not aware of
>> a system, which is able to deliver both... at least not yet.
>>
>> Hans
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Group home for Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation:
>> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/consult
>>
>> Replies go to members of Online Consultations, Dialogues, and
>> E-Participation with all posts on this topic here:
>> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/4ymGnJvzWBFTwGHNP47XbR
>>
>> For digest version or to leave Online Consultations, Dialogues, and
>> E-Participation,
>> email <email obscured>
>> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>>
>> Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation is hosted by
>> Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

--

Brian Sullivan
Practical Evolution, LLC
San Francisco, CA USA
<email obscured>
415.305.3651

Sponsor of CivicEvolution
http://civicevolution.org

From: Carlos Cunha Date: Dec 07 23:16 UTC Short link

Heh everyone,  How about if this network was to work on the (as perfect as
possible) truly independent and bipartisan collaborative online environment to
engage citizens.  It could become an independent, bi-partisan think-tank which
could come up with balanced proposals.  Or maybe I am dreaming.

Carlos Cunha

>>> Brian Sullivan <brian@civicevolution.org> 11/27/08 3:48 PM >>>
Excellent points Christoforos.

One thing I think we have to keep in mind is that the systems that are
put in place must be truly independent and bipartisan. I think many
people might look at change.gov as an extension of MyBarack.com and
consider it a highly partisan operation. When their ideas are not
recognized, as will be the case for nearly every idea that is submitted,
their belief will be reinforced. As some people come to view it as
partisan they will drop out and accelerate the balkanization.

While the US government should certainly promote a collaborative online
environment to engage citizens, I don't think that anything it can do
will realize the bulk of our expectations and possibilities.  Any
government will always be political and have to contend with political
and other forces that will seek to diminish true organic change. Citizen
input that is filtered through government sponsored systems will always
be less robust than a truly independent system. The most important
changes wanted by the citizens are likely to fall outside of the
acceptable bounds dictated not only by the specific circumstances of an
issue, but also the political "realities" that a government decides it
cannot ignore.

I believe that true change will require very robust public support
founded on common interest. A scrupulously non-partisan and transparent
system that helps citizens develop, promote, and communicate their ideas
is essential. It is also essential that this system remain independent
of the system that has the power to actually implement change
(government agencies). If they are not independent, the fairness and
effectiveness of the former(tools and spaces) will be judged by the
outcomes of the latter (agencies). It will be too easy to doubt the
process when I don't get me desired result. Obviously not everyone can
get their desired result in an all-in-one system like change.gov.
However, if citizens can understand and use the process to raise their
voice and their concerns - and maybe then plug it into an agency, there
is a much better chance that they will see their success in organizing
and voicing their desire, even if they don't gain agency action this
time around.

This leads me to the final thought which is that significant change only
occurs when a groundswell of support arises in the republic. Government
is mostly reactive. And when it becomes proactive it opens itself to all
manner of legitimate as well as absurd attack from special interests and
cliques. Popular support must be present to defend and fortify proactive
change. When the Clinton administration tried to improve the health care
system we got warnings of socialism and Harry and Louise. If there was
organized popular support we may have gotten, and may yet, get a much
better outcome. But it has to be organic popular support, not something
engineered from the white house which will invoke fears of a cult of
personality, and in the wrong hands lead to a demagoguery.

yes WE can!
    

Brian


Christoforos Korakas wrote:
> Thanks for sharing
>
> I have already mailed them some weeks ago (who knows where these mails
> go...) saying that they are basically taking a very "light" approach to
> engaging the citizens...
>
> I cannot believe that an administration that has raised that much hope for
> change having used extensively and apparently comprehending the web world,
> acts like that ....
>
> Either they have technology I don't know of, or they are just kidding
> people...
>
> What are they going to do with thousands of extensive comments by citizens?
> Are they going to read it? are they going to make out something out of it ?
> are they going to respond on the matter and not in a generic way to all
> those who have wrote?
>
> No one told them that people do not generally have the time nor habit to
> talk to government, and that frustrating them now is a BIG mistake?
>
> I am sure that if any one had asked or given the possibility to the
> edemocracy community both in the US Europe and the rest of the word (we are
> all online after all) to actively contribute to finding a solution and had
> provided the means to implement it ... we could have come up with something
> much more efficient advancing both the Change idea and eDemocracy that
> really lacks tools like that ...
>
> The big issue for all of us is how to bring about and then effectively deal
> with Massive participation ...
>
> I hope the US is not going to waste a golden opportunity it has with massive
> will for contributions from citizens ....
>
> It is not too late, but please !! tell them to start giving some thought to
> what you do and use the expertise!!
>
> Best
>
> Christoforos
>
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Hans Hagedorn <hagedorn@zebralog.com>wrote:
>
>
>> It's a hard task for change.gov. There are systems out there which can
>> handle the amount of contributions a us-presidential web-forum can expect.
>> And there are systems out there which can build collaborative results in a
>> quality a us-presedential web-forum should guarantee. But I am not aware of
>> a system, which is able to deliver both... at least not yet.
>>
>> Hans
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Group home for Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation:
>> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/consult
>>
>> Replies go to members of Online Consultations, Dialogues, and
>> E-Participation with all posts on this topic here:
>> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/4ymGnJvzWBFTwGHNP47XbR
>>
>> For digest version or to leave Online Consultations, Dialogues, and
>> E-Participation,
>> email <email obscured>
>> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>>
>> Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation is hosted by
>> Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

--

Brian Sullivan
Practical Evolution, LLC
San Francisco, CA USA
<email obscured>
415.305.3651

Sponsor of CivicEvolution
http://civicevolution.org



-----------------------------------------
Group home for Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/consult

Replies go to members of Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation
with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/4oq1b6kAC82gcDS9M0snHb

For digest version or to leave Online Consultations, Dialogues, and
E-Participation,
email <email obscured>
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.

Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation is hosted by Democracies
Online - http://dowire.org.

From: Stephen Buckley Date: Dec 19 02:46 UTC Short link

You all were probably scratching your head at my last posting about Change.gov.
If you are reading this in an email, then I will quote that puzzling message
here:
    

=================

Dec 13 15:46 EST
Well, Steve, since you reminded me of the "feedback-dropbox" at Change.gov, I
went ahead and made the following suggestion to them.  I'll let you all know if
I get feedback from them.

=================

I apologize in that I thought that I had cut-and-pasted the "following
suggestion" that I had sent to Change.gov's suggestion box, but obviously it
did not work.

I can not now retrieve the *exact* language (it was a website dropbox), but the
gist of it was that Change.gov should also set up a discussion area (like they
did with Healthcare) but that allowed people to discuss how to improve "Civic
Engagement".

I also indicated there were many people out there who have been involved in
"Civic Engagement" and that, although they already have many sharp people
working at Change.gov, it would be wise to encourage and exploit (in a good
way) the collective wisdom of all those who already have online experience in
that area.  As an example, I gave the web-address of this thread.

Of course, my message to Change.gov might have gone into an inbox with
thousands of other messages that some intern is slowing plowing through (or
not).

BUT, if they do visit this thread on DOwire, then I encourage them to ask us
(even anonymously) about how to go about making their online civic engagement
(i.e., for now, Change.gov) continously better.

And, if you are familiar with the concept of "continous-improvement" in
organizations, then you know that it requires continuous discussion about (1)
what is working well, and (2) what can be improved, and then (3) how might we
make those improvements.

On a Side-Note:
I'm very curious as to how many of the people at Change.gov truly understand
that this continuous-improvement aspect of "change" needs to be made a
permanent part of way that federal agencies operate.

And I say that I'm curious because I know that some of Obama's change-agents do
NOT "get it" when I read that they want to "root out" waste and inefficiency in
federal agencies by sending in special "SWAT teams".  (What?!!!  Do they expect
to burst in and catch bureaucrats in the act of wasting money?  Sheesh.  I
know, from my own federal experience, that it is not so simple.)

Okay, enough ranting about that.  Let's see if Change.gov responds to my
suggestion to open a new online channel for discussion (e.g., about "online
discussion").

-- SB

From: Michael Allan Date: Dec 20 08:11 UTC Short link

> You all were probably scratching your head at my last posting about
> Change.gov.  If you are reading this in an email, then I will quote
> that puzzling message here:
>
> =================

I think it's these ^ double lines.  They truncate your posts in the
Web archive.  (Not sure why.)
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/consult/
    

From: Michael Allan Date: Dec 22 02:53 UTC Short link

Stephen Buckley wrote:

> But then I noticed it was also there for just a one-word signature at
> the end of a message ("Hans").  So does any text that has been
> cut-and-pasted then cause the system to treat it differently (i.e., hide it)?

It appears to cue on extra-long quotes (>), signature marks (--), and
any row of dashes (----, ====).  It doesn't affect mail, just the Web
archive.  Maybe it's trying to clean up the page for us, trying to
hide chaff (?).

> I don't mean to be tedious on this, so is this something that should
> be referred to the system developers?

I'm not sure, I don't know the system.  It might just be a config
item.  The Web admin would know.
    

-- Mike