Posts in UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange

Nov 26 13:19 UTC

Actually, it's £4 million... 10 parks each to get £400,000.

Unbelievable.

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf Of
Tom Steinberg
Sent: 25 November 2008 11:12
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] London Parks e-Participation & e-Voting &
e-Budgeting

Oh my God - are they really serious?

Everyone knows internet votes like this are trivial to rig. Are they
seriously proposing to allow up to half a million to be spent like
this? Anyone in my team could knock up a script to vote with plausible
looking data thousands of times, in about 30 minutes.

Tom

2008/11/25 James Gilmour <jgilmour@globalnet.co.uk>:
> Mayor Boris Johnson calls on Londoners to vote to 'Help a London Park'
Greater London Authority (press release) - London,England,UK
> Londoners can vote to choose which parks get the £400000 simply by logging
on to www.london.gov.uk/parksvote , by text message or by
> postal vote. ...
>
> This MAY encourage participation but it uses an unsophisticated voting
system that might well fail to reflect the voters' real
> wishes and it takes a very unsophisticated approach to budgeting.  Given
some of the budgeting tools that are now in the public
> domain, a much more dynamic approach could have been taken to asking
participants for their views on the allocation of all the money
> available.  But maybe this is a small acorn .......
>
> James
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1810 - Release Date:
24/11/2008 14:36
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie
>
> Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all
posts on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/ORhzOYheey9plEgArqegS
>
> For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.
>

--
Director, mySociety
07811 082158
www.mySociety.org

-----------------------------------------
Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie

Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all posts
on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/1fAzbp7W3bmjX3gjzYksMU

For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
email <email obscured>
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.

UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.
One of the parks is in my ward and I'd love it to win (King Edward's in SW
London, in case you're asking). But it is thoroughly humiliating to have to
subject it to a reality show vote-in.

The very sketchy information provided about each park gives no indication
about why it should be chosen. In our case, we will no doubt be branded with
the 'leafy Kingston' label, as we have no chance to explain the demographics
and history of this very ordinary area.

This is certainly not what I understand by participatory budgeting, which at
the very least should include some deliberation.

On the other hand, I'd better go off and encourage the readers of my blog to
vote...

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf Of
Tom Steinberg
Sent: 25 November 2008 11:12
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] London Parks e-Participation & e-Voting &
e-Budgeting

Oh my God - are they really serious?

Everyone knows internet votes like this are trivial to rig. Are they
seriously proposing to allow up to half a million to be spent like
this? Anyone in my team could knock up a script to vote with plausible
looking data thousands of times, in about 30 minutes.

Tom

2008/11/25 James Gilmour <jgilmour@globalnet.co.uk>:
> Mayor Boris Johnson calls on Londoners to vote to 'Help a London Park'
Greater London Authority (press release) - London,England,UK
> Londoners can vote to choose which parks get the £400000 simply by logging
on to www.london.gov.uk/parksvote , by text message or by
> postal vote. ...
>
> This MAY encourage participation but it uses an unsophisticated voting
system that might well fail to reflect the voters' real
> wishes and it takes a very unsophisticated approach to budgeting.  Given
some of the budgeting tools that are now in the public
> domain, a much more dynamic approach could have been taken to asking
participants for their views on the allocation of all the money
> available.  But maybe this is a small acorn .......
>
> James
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1810 - Release Date:
24/11/2008 14:36
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie
>
> Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all
posts on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/ORhzOYheey9plEgArqegS
>
> For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.
>

--
Director, mySociety
07811 082158
www.mySociety.org

-----------------------------------------
Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie

Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all posts
on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/1fAzbp7W3bmjX3gjzYksMU

For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
email <email obscured>
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.

UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.
One thing that makes this hard is that the values by which different people
judge e-participation can be quite different. We found that consulters on the
island of Ireland valued most citizen views, and least citizen participation in
decision-making. The consultees ranking was the other way around (see the
report linked from www.e-consultation.org).

So we turned to the academic literature looking for applicable theories. We
found at least 7 mutually contradictory approaches (e.g. cf. the focus on the
efficiency of a single consultation in the public administration literature,
versus the concern for long-term relationships of trust in the deliberative
democracy literature).

Over the last 3 years I have been going to e-government and e-democracy
conferences and running electronic brainstorming sessions to find out how
experienced practitioners and researchers judge one e-participation example as
better than another. It looks like their criteria can be grouped into around 10
value categories.

Dave Newman, Queen's University Management School

Oh my God - are they really serious?

Everyone knows internet votes like this are trivial to rig. Are they
seriously proposing to allow up to half a million to be spent like
this? Anyone in my team could knock up a script to vote with plausible
looking data thousands of times, in about 30 minutes.

Tom

2008/11/25 James Gilmour <jgilmour@globalnet.co.uk>:
> Mayor Boris Johnson calls on Londoners to vote to 'Help a London Park'
Greater London Authority (press release) - London,England,UK
> Londoners can vote to choose which parks get the £400000 simply by logging
on to www.london.gov.uk/parksvote , by text message or by
> postal vote. ...
>
> This MAY encourage participation but it uses an unsophisticated voting system
that might well fail to reflect the voters' real
> wishes and it takes a very unsophisticated approach to budgeting.  Given some
of the budgeting tools that are now in the public
> domain, a much more dynamic approach could have been taken to asking
participants for their views on the allocation of all the money
> available.  But maybe this is a small acorn .......
>
> James
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1810 - Release Date: 24/11/2008
14:36
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie
>
> Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all posts
on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/ORhzOYheey9plEgArqegS
>
> For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.

>

--
Director, mySociety
07811 082158
www.mySociety.org
Mayor Boris Johnson calls on Londoners to vote to 'Help a London Park' Greater
London Authority (press release) - London,England,UK
Londoners can vote to choose which parks get the £400000 simply by logging on
to www.london.gov.uk/parksvote , by text message or by
postal vote. ...

This MAY encourage participation but it uses an unsophisticated voting system
that might well fail to reflect the voters' real
wishes and it takes a very unsophisticated approach to budgeting.  Given some
of the budgeting tools that are now in the public
domain, a much more dynamic approach could have been taken to asking
participants for their views on the allocation of all the money
available.  But maybe this is a small acorn .......

James

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1810 - Release Date: 24/11/2008
14:36

I was on the Nominet list until my illness two years ago and it is a
very complex situation. Trying to have an international thing like the
Internet naming standards run by loads and loads of what are effectively
volunteers is a miracle that it has lasted this far...

I wish them on all the best!

Mick

http://greatemancipator.com

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf
Of Jill Sanders
Sent: 23 November 2008 12:38
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Nominet

My initial reaction is:  can you imagine if gov has its dabs on making
the
connections to domain names?  It would cut off any website it
disapproved
of, and only watchdogs (read lapdogs) for scrutiny.  It would give gov
the
key to censorship by the hidden door.  That nominet so far has been
independent, non-partisan and not for profit is essential.  Gov is none
of
these things!!!  I believe it would be the end of the internet as we
know it
because no gov - local or national, whichever party, whatever
'democracy' -
can be trusted to be fair, open or equal in its dealings with public
media -
especially here.  Gov would love this power!  I can therefore see it
happening....  At first sight, this strikes me as a sinister move and to
be
resisted.  What do others think?
Best wishes
Jill

----- Original Message -----
From: "Taylor-Smith, Ella" <E.Taylor-Smith@napier.ac.uk>
To: "UKIE" <ukie@groups.dowire.org>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 12:27 PM
Subject: [UKIE-EDem] Nominet

Hi,
Yesterday's article in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/20/nominet-domain-name-reg
istry
wasn't the first I've read recently about Nominet's internal wriggling
and
relationship with government and it's hard to see if these are much more

than disgruntled gossip.

However, the article makes an interesting assumption - that it is better

that Nominet stays independent of government.

Could someone more au fait with this than me explain why this is?

For example, I can't see how people and non-commercial organisations
have an
input here, though it aims to represent us on international bodies
(where
other countries have democratically* accountable representation).

Perhaps my question is "how do we influence Nominet?"
-Ella

*a bit subjective of course

Ella Taylor-Smith

International Teledemocracy Centre
Napier University
10 Colinton Road
Edinburgh, EH10 5DT

Telephone: +44 (0) 131 455 2392  Fax:  +44 (0) 131 455 2282
Email: <email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>>

http://itc.napier.ac.uk

Napier University is the best modern university in Scotland* and number
one
in Scotland for graduate employability**
(*Guardian University Guide 2009)
(**HESA 2008)

This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be
read,
copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the
permission of the sender.
It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any
attachments
are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not
accept
liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any

attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email
is
not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject
to
routine monitoring and filtering by the University.
Napier University is a registered Scottish charity. Registration number
SC018373

-----------------------------------------
Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie

Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all
posts
on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2EZN7QSR603iMqnS1NqitW

For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
email <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
*subject*.

UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.

-----------------------------------------
Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie

Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all
posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/660owZQ0ywhBmU4IM8p6ir

For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
email <email obscured>
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.

UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by
AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1806 - Release Date:
22/11/2008 18:59
My initial reaction is:  can you imagine if gov has its dabs on making the
connections to domain names?  It would cut off any website it disapproved
of, and only watchdogs (read lapdogs) for scrutiny.  It would give gov the
key to censorship by the hidden door.  That nominet so far has been
independent, non-partisan and not for profit is essential.  Gov is none of
these things!!!  I believe it would be the end of the internet as we know it
because no gov - local or national, whichever party, whatever 'democracy' -
can be trusted to be fair, open or equal in its dealings with public media -
especially here.  Gov would love this power!  I can therefore see it
happening....  At first sight, this strikes me as a sinister move and to be
resisted.  What do others think?
Best wishes
Jill

----- Original Message -----
From: "Taylor-Smith, Ella" <E.Taylor-Smith@napier.ac.uk>
To: "UKIE" <ukie@groups.dowire.org>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 12:27 PM
Subject: [UKIE-EDem] Nominet

Hi,
Yesterday's article in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/20/nominet-domain-name-registry
wasn't the first I've read recently about Nominet's internal wriggling and
relationship with government and it's hard to see if these are much more
than disgruntled gossip.

However, the article makes an interesting assumption - that it is better
that Nominet stays independent of government.

Could someone more au fait with this than me explain why this is?

For example, I can't see how people and non-commercial organisations have an
input here, though it aims to represent us on international bodies (where
other countries have democratically* accountable representation).

Perhaps my question is "how do we influence Nominet?"
-Ella

*a bit subjective of course

Ella Taylor-Smith

International Teledemocracy Centre
Napier University
10 Colinton Road
Edinburgh, EH10 5DT

Telephone: +44 (0) 131 455 2392  Fax:  +44 (0) 131 455 2282
Email: <email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>>

http://itc.napier.ac.uk

Napier University is the best modern university in Scotland* and number one
in Scotland for graduate employability**
(*Guardian University Guide 2009)
(**HESA 2008)

This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read,
copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the
permission of the sender.
It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments
are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept
liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any
attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is
not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject to
routine monitoring and filtering by the University.
Napier University is a registered Scottish charity. Registration number
SC018373

-----------------------------------------
Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie

Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all posts
on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2EZN7QSR603iMqnS1NqitW

For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
email <email obscured>
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.

UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.
Some detailed data and some interesting analysis about e-participation.

The Clickocracy:  Obama Raised Half a Billion Online
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/20/obama_raised_half_a_billion_on.html

James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.8/1801 - Release Date: 20/11/2008
19:28

Hi,
Yesterday's article in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/20/nominet-domain-name-registry
wasn't the first I've read recently about Nominet's internal wriggling and
relationship with government and it's hard to see if these are much more than
disgruntled gossip.

However, the article makes an interesting assumption - that it is better that
Nominet stays independent of government.

Could someone more au fait with this than me explain why this is?

For example, I can't see how people and non-commercial organisations have an
input here, though it aims to represent us on international bodies (where other
countries have democratically* accountable representation).

Perhaps my question is "how do we influence Nominet?"
-Ella

*a bit subjective of course

Ella Taylor-Smith

International Teledemocracy Centre
Napier University
10 Colinton Road
Edinburgh, EH10 5DT

Telephone: +44 (0) 131 455 2392  Fax:  +44 (0) 131 455 2282
Email: <email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>>

http://itc.napier.ac.uk

Napier University is the best modern university in Scotland* and number one in
Scotland for graduate employability**
(*Guardian University Guide 2009)
(**HESA 2008)

This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read,
copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the
permission of the sender.
It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are
scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept
liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any
attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not
a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject to routine
monitoring and filtering by the University.
Napier University is a registered Scottish charity. Registration number
SC018373

John Bruce > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 9:27 AM
> I am sure that you are aware that the Marked Electoral
> Registers at Parliamentary and Local Authority elections in
> the UK are available for Public Inspection for a period of 1
> year after the election. Indeed, they can get copies of the
> marked registers for a fee. This enables politicians and
> political parties to establish who actually voted and enables
> them to target their scarce resources at the people who did not vote.

Yes, John, I was well aware of the availability of Marked Electoral Registers
in the UK.  But I have never understood what real
public interest was served by the provision of such marked registers.  I can
understand the political party interest very easily,
but that is no good reason for making such registers available  -  important
though political  parties are to the political system.

Reports from former councillors indicated that they would often look to see if
a constituent attending their ward surgery had voted
at the previous election.  Quite what difference that made to the way they then
handled the constituent or dealt with the issue
raised, I don't know.  But should the possibility that they might react
different not be a matter for concern?

It is not at all clear to me what you mean by "target their scarce resources at
the people who did not vote".  I think it is just as
likely that the political parties would ignore the non-voting electors
completely.  And, more importantly, I don't see how the
public interest would be served such targeting.  We have seen the disastrous
political effects of the extremely sophisticated
targeting by the main political parties on a tiny number of "swing voters" in
the "key marginal constituencies" in UK general
elections.  The total number of these "swing voters" who determined the outcome
has been estimated to be only 80,000 in an
electorate of 44,245,000 of whom around 27,150,000 voted in the 2005 general
election.

James

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.2/1784 - Release Date: 12/11/2008
19:01

A big discussion from:
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/11/mps-bury-heads-in-sand-over-e-democracy.html

Also see:
http://spartakan.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/e-democracy-08-a-good-day-out/

MPs Bury Heads in Sand Over e-Democracy
Iain Dale 9:17 AM

Yesterday afternoon I was part of a panel at the e-Democray conference. Pete
Bazalgette (who created Big Brother), Labour MP Margaret Moran and LibDem MP
Willie Rennie were the other participants. Normally, this sort of panel is
quite tepid because there is a certain amount of agreement across the panel.
Not yesterday.

Willie Rennie was the victor of the 2006 Dunfermline by-election. He is also
the head of the LibDems Parliamentary Campaigns team (or so it said on the
programme). LibDems are normally very switched in with regard to campaigning.
Generally, they "get" what technology can contribute to campaigns. Not Willie
Rennie, though. His entire web strategy was to have collected 1,500 email
addresses from constituents within two years, to whom he sends a monthly email.
He doesn't even post the email on his website (which he shares with the local
MSP!). He has not blog, no other web presence and derided those who did. He
didn't fancy blogging in case he said something against the party line. I
didn't think that would be so much of a problem for the LibDems, but there you
go. I have rarely encountered a politician so immune to the opportunities which
the internet provides.

Margaret Moran seemed obsessed by one subject. If her analysis was right, her
Luton constituency is full of wife beaters. The only subject she seemed at all
interested in was domestic violence and how she could "outreach" to the victims
of it. All well and good, but what about the other 99.9% of her constituents.
She had been involved in an online community group for her Asian constituents,
which, knock me down with a feather, even has recipes for curry on it! She,
again, seemed frightened of the blogosphere and couldn't see any redeeming
factor. I think it was her (although it may have been Willie) who described it
as full of "white noise". She didn't understand that it's quite easy to filter
out the white noise. She alleged all the bloggers were the same people that
write letters to the local paper or fill her mailbag. That may or may not be
true, but she seemed to want to ignore them, almost as if they didn't deserve a
voice if they weren't victims of domestic violence. E
xtraordinary. She then said that these were the sort of people whose only
interest was to comment on her "boobs and shoes". She was indeed wearing a very
nice pair of shoes!

Both these MPs were on full 'send mode', without a clue how to switch to
'receive'.

The audience seemed to be shaking its collective head at the views of the two
politicians, as well they might. It was profoundly depressing to see two
elected representatives who not only did not "get" what the internet can
achieve in terms of e-Democracy. They showed no sign of even having an open
mind on the subject.

UPDATE: Spartakan provides a comprehensive review of the conference and pays me
a backhanded compliment... "an articulate, educated man in a grey suit if ever
there was one". I don't do grey suits, but I am sure Saffron Walden County High
School will be pleased!

    * Delicious
    * Digg
    * reddit
    * Facebook
    * StumbleUpon

24 Comments:

See:
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/11/mps-bury-heads-in-sand-over-e-democracy.html

I am sure that you are aware that the Marked Electoral Registers at
Parliamentary and Local Authority elections in the UK are available for Public
Inspection for a period of 1 year after the election. Indeed, they can get
copies of the marked registers for a fee. This enables politicians and
political parties to establish who actually voted and enables them to target
their scarce resources at the people who did not vote.

John Bruce,

???  If you don't have to print this out...

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf Of James
Gilmour
Sent: 12 November 2008 23:18
To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] [DW] Site - US "Who Voted" Website Provides Public
Access to Voter Lists

Steven Clift > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 3:32 PM      via NEWSWIRE

> See:

> http://whovoted.net

Why should any of this information be in the public domain?

What aspect of "the public interest" is being served by allowing me to see
whether you voted?

There MAY be a public interest element to allowing a non-voter to discover that
s/he is recorded as having voted, but what could

they then do?  The incorrect record may indicate a genuine mistake or it may
indicate personation.  But what to do in either case?

There is no significant public interest element in allowing a voter to see that
s/he has been recorded as having voted, because that

does not mean that their vote has been counted or has been counted for the
candidate they wished.  Those verifications would require

a very different procedure.

Information about your membership or non-membership of a political party should
not be in the public domain - for ordinary electors,

it should be a wholly private matter.

State and federal authorities and state and federal laws should have no place
in the internal elections of political parties to

choose their candidates for public elections.  Such elections should be private
matters for the members of the parties concerned.

The role of state or federal law in such private matters should be limited to
providing the back-stop of "natural justice" for the

members of a political party that fails to comply with its own internal
electoral regulations or which adopts regulations that do

not comply with the accepted rules of "natural justice".

James Gilmour

-----------------------------------------

Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:

http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie

Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all posts on
this topic here:

http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2UAobn1cc7lizKe5YTdVB0

For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,

email <email obscured>

with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.

UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.

______________________________________________

This email has been scanned by Netintelligence

http://www.netintelligence.com/email

Unless related to the business of The Highland Council, the views or opinions
expressed within this email are those of the sender and do not necessarily
reflect those of The Highland Council, or associated bodies, nor does this
email form part of any contract unless so stated.
Steven Clift > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 3:32 PM      via NEWSWIRE
> See:
> http://whovoted.net

Why should any of this information be in the public domain?

What aspect of "the public interest" is being served by allowing me to see
whether you voted?

There MAY be a public interest element to allowing a non-voter to discover that
s/he is recorded as having voted, but what could
they then do?  The incorrect record may indicate a genuine mistake or it may
indicate personation.  But what to do in either case?

There is no significant public interest element in allowing a voter to see that
s/he has been recorded as having voted, because that
does not mean that their vote has been counted or has been counted for the
candidate they wished.  Those verifications would require
a very different procedure.

Information about your membership or non-membership of a political party should
not be in the public domain - for ordinary electors,
it should be a wholly private matter.

State and federal authorities and state and federal laws should have no place
in the internal elections of political parties to
choose their candidates for public elections.  Such elections should be private
matters for the members of the parties concerned.
The role of state or federal law in such private matters should be limited to
providing the back-stop of "natural justice" for the
members of a political party that fails to comply with its own internal
electoral regulations or which adopts regulations that do
not comply with the accepted rules of "natural justice".

James Gilmour

Thank you Simon for bringing this wiki to my attention. I do recall
hearing about the event that the wiki was created to support.
Unfortunately I was unable to attend.

I certainly think that the purpose of the wiki, and issue it is seeking
to address, is important given the increasing use of social media to
communicate and engage audiences. I would be more than happy to feedback
the outcomes of our activity as a way of informing the social media
measurement discussion/debate. However, as I'm interested in exploring
specifically the types of indicators/metrics that measure how online
engagement exercise has fed into the policy process it might be best to
create a separate wiki.

I will post a link to the wiki here once some content has been uploaded
so that those interested in contributing can do so.

All the best

Michelle

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf
Of simon collister
Sent: 08 November 2008 17:48
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation

This is a bit belated, but some more useful respurces may be found via
the Measuremnet Camp wiki.

Backstory: A number of digital mareklting/comms types have been meeting
sporadically for a few months to discuss ideas for best practice
evaluation. The wiki for the project is at:
http://measurementcamp.wikidot.com

In fact I wonder if it might be an idea to set up sub-groups within the
Measuremnt Camp group itself. There's a lot of info to take in at the
discussions and maybe breaking down priorities into sectors or specific
outcomes (engagement, ROI, etc) may work.

I know the guy who created and runs MC. if people are interested I am
happy to broach the issue.

Simon

 Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation
> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:52:18 +0000
> From: <email obscured>
> To: <email obscured>
>
>
> Thanks Simon, Mick, Tim and Fraser for your thoughts.
>
> I totally agree that any metric/indicator that is developed should be
> co-produced by citizens/users of services. I'm not interested in ROI
> justification for online engagement rather insight into who is
> participating in government lead online activities and why. Until
> government truly adopts collaborative working there needs to be some
> form of measurement of what does/doesn't work and why.
>
> I would like to move to a more open, transparent and deliberative
> practice to develop policy (something we continually speak of and
> refer
> to) but in reality government isn't there yet and I need evidence to
> illustrate this. Otherwise, we won't be able to conduct this type of
> engagement process ourselves rather rely on other parties to undertake

> the work. That's my take on things, anyway....
>
> I'm going to revisit previous posts by Simon and review Headshift's
> blog before progressing. If I set up a wiki as a way of co-producing
> some sort of evaluation guide/framework for officials that covers all
> channels (I totally agree that the focus shouldn't just be on the
> internet) would people be interested in contributing?
>
> Michelle
>
> PS Thanks Laura from Hansard Society for forwarding me another public
> participation evaluation report.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf

> Of simon collister
> Sent: 05 November 2008 19:17
> To: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation
>
>
> I posted a while ago about setting KPIs for social sites/tools and
> engagement in general *after* the site has been running. The idea
> being it is counter-productive to set your own (top-down) targets and
> then measure them. Instead we should let the users (society) develop
> their own interactions/engagement with the site, set KPIs and measure
> retrospectively.
>
> FWIW My original post is here:
> http://www.simoncollister.com/simonsays/2007/07/measuring-the-r.html
>
> I also came across an article this week on measureing ROE rather than
> ROI, although I'm not sure how relevant this is for government
> departments(??):
> http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/current-issue/e3i397aa99d2
> 93
> 2d77da8e287fb413c62d6?imw=Y
>
>
>
> > From: <email obscured>
> > To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>
> > Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation
> > Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 19:04:47 +0000
> >
> > As a practioner and researcher in local government I saw the need
> > for metrics across all possible service channels, which as yet don't
> exist.
> > In fact I have the opinion that the commodification of government
> > has increased the alienation and the way forward is to re-engage
> > citizens (not customers) across all channels by delivering
> > co-produced
> services.
> > This is a vast simplification of my theory but I see it all hanging
> > togther...
> >
> > I'm not aware of any useful metrics, particularly ones that will
> > cover
>
> > all channels (to avoid social exclusion).
> >
> > Mick
> >
> > Http://greatemancipator.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On
> > Behalf
>
> > Of Lyons Michelle (DIUS)
> > Sent: 05 November 2008 17:27
> > To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>
> > Subject: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation
> >
> >
> > Apologies for cross posting...
> >
> > It dawned on me after reading numerous evaluation frameworks and
> > reports that there isn't really any metrics/indicators that measure
> > the impact of online engagement in the policy process.
> >
> > As central government, of which I'm a member, is increasingly
> > turning to the internet to engage with new audiences it would be
> > good to have a robust set of indicators and metrics that can be
adopted by anyone.
> > These measures would need to considered as an integral part of the
> > overall evaluation of the engagement exercise.
> >
> > I have been looking at the following publications and I'm wondering
> > whether there are any other evaluation publications that look at
> > online engagement which I should be reviewing?
> >
> > Many thanks
> >
> > Michelle Lyons
> >
> >
> > http://www.involve.org.uk/evaluation/
> > http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/publications/evaluationg
> > ui
> > de
> > .pdf
> > Hansard Society: Hearing Voices: The experience of online public
> > consultations and discussions in UK governance
> >
http://www.socialwebanalytics.com/The_Social_Web_Analytics_eBook_2008.
> > pd
> > f
> > http://www.iseing.org/egov/eGOV06/Accepted%20Papers/624/CRC/Evaluati
> > on
> > %2 0of%20eParticipationv-v2-submitted.pdf
> > http://oberon.sourceoecd.org/vl=1375501/cl=21/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/full
> > te xt ew.pl?prpsv=/ij/oecdthemes/99980096/v2005n21/s1/p1l.idx
> > http://sth.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/4/512 - Does anyone
> > have a pdf version?
> >
> > There are also a number of examples from the International
> > Association
>
> > for Public Participation and the IBM Centre for the Business of
> > Government.
> >
> > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government

> > Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in

> > partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number
> > 2007/11/0032.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus
> > free. Communications
>
> > via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded
> > for
>
> > legal purposes.
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> > http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie
> >
> > Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with
> > all posts on this topic here:
> > http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7Mo4PzMz7eHHmzxQImYW41
> >
> > For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
> > email <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in
> > the *subject*.
> >
> > UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online
> > - http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by
>
> > AVG - http://www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1769 - Release Date:
> > 05/11/2008 07:17
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> > http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie
> >
> > Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with
> > all
> posts on this topic here:
> > http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3N0XopebvmAeaaRnthHFAY
> >
> > For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
> > email <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in
> > the *subject*.
> >
> > UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online
> > -
> http://dowire.org.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> See the most popular videos on the web
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/115454061/direct/01/
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie
>
> Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all
> posts on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/VT6dCgonZnmBiZYUymIUo
>
> For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
> email <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
> *subject*.
>
> UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> http://dowire.org.
>
> This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the
> Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by
> Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate
> Number 2007/11/0032.) In case of problems, please call your
organisations IT Helpdesk.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored
> and/or recorded for legal purposes.
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) On
leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored
and/or recorded for legal purposes.
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie
>
> Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all
posts on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2nik6jWCzkcLyHAln35tIz
>
> For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
> email <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
> *subject*.
>
> UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.

_________________________________________________________________
See the most popular videos on the web
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/115454061/direct/01/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie

Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all
posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/4q1MhCBaB6wburiOrDTXRN

For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
email <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
*subject*.

UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.

This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government
Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) In
case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure
Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with
MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) On leaving the GSi this
email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
This is a bit belated, but some more useful respurces may be found via the
Measuremnet Camp wiki.

Backstory: A number of digital mareklting/comms types have been meeting
sporadically for a few months to discuss ideas for best practice evaluation.
The wiki for the project is at: http://measurementcamp.wikidot.com

In fact I wonder if it might be an idea to set up sub-groups within the
Measuremnt Camp group itself. There's a lot of info to take in at the
discussions and maybe breaking down priorities into sectors or specific
outcomes (engagement, ROI, etc) may work.

I know the guy who created and runs MC. if people are interested I am happy to
broach the issue.

Simon

 Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation

> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:52:18 +0000
> From: <email obscured>
> To: <email obscured>
>
>
> Thanks Simon, Mick, Tim and Fraser for your thoughts.
>
> I totally agree that any metric/indicator that is developed should be
> co-produced by citizens/users of services. I'm not interested in ROI
> justification for online engagement rather insight into who is
> participating in government lead online activities and why. Until
> government truly adopts collaborative working there needs to be some
> form of measurement of what does/doesn't work and why.
>
> I would like to move to a more open, transparent and deliberative
> practice to develop policy (something we continually speak of and refer
> to) but in reality government isn't there yet and I need evidence to
> illustrate this. Otherwise, we won't be able to conduct this type of
> engagement process ourselves rather rely on other parties to undertake
> the work. That's my take on things, anyway....
>
> I'm going to revisit previous posts by Simon and review Headshift's blog
> before progressing. If I set up a wiki as a way of co-producing some
> sort of evaluation guide/framework for officials that covers all
> channels (I totally agree that the focus shouldn't just be on the
> internet) would people be interested in contributing?
>
> Michelle
>
> PS Thanks Laura from Hansard Society for forwarding me another public
> participation evaluation report.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf
> Of simon collister
> Sent: 05 November 2008 19:17
> To: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation
>
>
> I posted a while ago about setting KPIs for social sites/tools and
> engagement in general *after* the site has been running. The idea being
> it is counter-productive to set your own (top-down) targets and then
> measure them. Instead we should let the users (society) develop their
> own interactions/engagement with the site, set KPIs and measure
> retrospectively.
>
> FWIW My original post is here:
> http://www.simoncollister.com/simonsays/2007/07/measuring-the-r.html
>
> I also came across an article this week on measureing ROE rather than
> ROI, although I'm not sure how relevant this is for government
> departments(??):
> http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/current-issue/e3i397aa99d293
> 2d77da8e287fb413c62d6?imw=Y
>
>
>
> > From: <email obscured>
> > To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>
> > Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation
> > Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 19:04:47 +0000
> >
> > As a practioner and researcher in local government I saw the need for
> > metrics across all possible service channels, which as yet don't
> exist.
> > In fact I have the opinion that the commodification of government has
> > increased the alienation and the way forward is to re-engage citizens
> > (not customers) across all channels by delivering co-produced
> services.
> > This is a vast simplification of my theory but I see it all hanging
> > togther...
> >
> > I'm not aware of any useful metrics, particularly ones that will cover
>
> > all channels (to avoid social exclusion).
> >
> > Mick
> >
> > Http://greatemancipator.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf
>
> > Of Lyons Michelle (DIUS)
> > Sent: 05 November 2008 17:27
> > To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>
> > Subject: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation
> >
> >
> > Apologies for cross posting...
> >
> > It dawned on me after reading numerous evaluation frameworks and
> > reports that there isn't really any metrics/indicators that measure
> > the impact of online engagement in the policy process.
> >
> > As central government, of which I'm a member, is increasingly turning
> > to the internet to engage with new audiences it would be good to have
> > a robust set of indicators and metrics that can be adopted by anyone.
> > These measures would need to considered as an integral part of the
> > overall evaluation of the engagement exercise.
> >
> > I have been looking at the following publications and I'm wondering
> > whether there are any other evaluation publications that look at
> > online engagement which I should be reviewing?
> >
> > Many thanks
> >
> > Michelle Lyons
> >
> >
> > http://www.involve.org.uk/evaluation/
> > http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/publications/evaluationgui
> > de
> > .pdf
> > Hansard Society: Hearing Voices: The experience of online public
> > consultations and discussions in UK governance
> > http://www.socialwebanalytics.com/The_Social_Web_Analytics_eBook_2008.
> > pd
> > f
> > http://www.iseing.org/egov/eGOV06/Accepted%20Papers/624/CRC/Evaluation
> > %2 0of%20eParticipationv-v2-submitted.pdf
> > http://oberon.sourceoecd.org/vl=1375501/cl=21/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/fullte
> > xt ew.pl?prpsv=/ij/oecdthemes/99980096/v2005n21/s1/p1l.idx
> > http://sth.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/4/512 - Does anyone
> > have a pdf version?
> >
> > There are also a number of examples from the International Association
>
> > for Public Participation and the IBM Centre for the Business of
> > Government.
> >
> > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> > Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
> > partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.)
> > On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications
>
> > via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
>
> > legal purposes.
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> > http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie
> >
> > Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all
> > posts on this topic here:
> > http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7Mo4PzMz7eHHmzxQImYW41
> >
> > For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
> > email <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
> > *subject*.
> >
> > UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> > http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by
>
> > AVG - http://www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1769 - Release Date:
> > 05/11/2008 07:17
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> > http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie
> >
> > Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all
> posts on this topic here:
> > http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3N0XopebvmAeaaRnthHFAY
> >
> > For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
> > email <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
> > *subject*.
> >
> > UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> http://dowire.org.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> See the most popular videos on the web
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/115454061/direct/01/
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie
>
> Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all
> posts on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/VT6dCgonZnmBiZYUymIUo
>
> For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
> email <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
> *subject*.
>
> UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> http://dowire.org.
>
> This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government
> Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
> partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) In
> case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
> recorded for legal purposes.
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure
Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with
MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) On leaving the GSi this
email was certified virus free.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie
>
> Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all posts
on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2nik6jWCzkcLyHAln35tIz
>
> For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.

_________________________________________________________________
See the most popular videos on the web
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/115454061/direct/01/
We would be keen to participate as we are about to start a local wikki with
stakeholders to develop our framework - including evaluation.

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org]On Behalf Of
Lyons Michelle (DIUS)
Sent: 06 November 2008 12:52
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation

Thanks Simon, Mick, Tim and Fraser for your thoughts.

I totally agree that any metric/indicator that is developed should be
co-produced by citizens/users of services. I'm not interested in ROI
justification for online engagement rather insight into who is
participating in government lead online activities and why. Until
government truly adopts collaborative working there needs to be some
form of measurement of what does/doesn't work and why.

I would like to move to a more open, transparent and deliberative
practice to develop policy (something we continually speak of and refer
to) but in reality government isn't there yet and I need evidence to
illustrate this. Otherwise, we won't be able to conduct this type of
engagement process ourselves rather rely on other parties to undertake
the work. That's my take on things, anyway....

I'm going to revisit previous posts by Simon and review Headshift's blog
before progressing. If I set up a wiki as a way of co-producing some
sort of evaluation guide/framework for officials that covers all
channels (I totally agree that the focus shouldn't just be on the
internet) would people be interested in contributing?

Michelle

PS Thanks Laura from Hansard Society for forwarding me another public
participation evaluation report.

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf
Of simon collister
Sent: 05 November 2008 19:17
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation

I posted a while ago about setting KPIs for social sites/tools and
engagement in general *after* the site has been running. The idea being
it is counter-productive to set your own (top-down) targets and then
measure them. Instead we should let the users (society) develop their
own interactions/engagement with the site, set KPIs and measure
retrospectively.

FWIW My original post is here:
http://www.simoncollister.com/simonsays/2007/07/measuring-the-r.html

I also came across an article this week on measureing ROE rather than
ROI, although I'm not sure how relevant this is for government
departments(??):
http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/current-issue/e3i397aa99d293
2d77da8e287fb413c62d6?imw=Y

> From: <email obscured>
> To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation
> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 19:04:47 +0000
>
> As a practioner and researcher in local government I saw the need for
> metrics across all possible service channels, which as yet don't
exist.
> In fact I have the opinion that the commodification of government has
> increased the alienation and the way forward is to re-engage citizens
> (not customers) across all channels by delivering co-produced
services.
> This is a vast simplification of my theory but I see it all hanging
> togther...
>
> I'm not aware of any useful metrics, particularly ones that will cover

> all channels (to avoid social exclusion).
>
> Mick
>
> Http://greatemancipator.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf

> Of Lyons Michelle (DIUS)
> Sent: 05 November 2008 17:27
> To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>
> Subject: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation
>
>
> Apologies for cross posting...
>
> It dawned on me after reading numerous evaluation frameworks and
> reports that there isn't really any metrics/indicators that measure
> the impact of online engagement in the policy process.
>
> As central government, of which I'm a member, is increasingly turning
> to the internet to engage with new audiences it would be good to have
> a robust set of indicators and metrics that can be adopted by anyone.
> These measures would need to considered as an integral part of the
> overall evaluation of the engagement exercise.
>
> I have been looking at the following publications and I'm wondering
> whether there are any other evaluation publications that look at
> online engagement which I should be reviewing?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Michelle Lyons
>
>
> http://www.involve.org.uk/evaluation/
> http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/publications/evaluationgui
> de
> .pdf
> Hansard Society: Hearing Voices: The experience of online public
> consultations and discussions in UK governance
> http://www.socialwebanalytics.com/The_Social_Web_Analytics_eBook_2008.
> pd
> f
> http://www.iseing.org/egov/eGOV06/Accepted%20Papers/624/CRC/Evaluation
> %2 0of%20eParticipationv-v2-submitted.pdf
> http://oberon.sourceoecd.org/vl=1375501/cl=21/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/fullte
> xt ew.pl?prpsv=/ij/oecdthemes/99980096/v2005n21/s1/p1l.idx
> http://sth.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/4/512 - Does anyone
> have a pdf version?
>
> There are also a number of examples from the International Association

> for Public Participation and the IBM Centre for the Business of
> Government.
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
> partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.)
> On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications

> via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for

> legal purposes.
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie
>
> Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all
> posts on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7Mo4PzMz7eHHmzxQImYW41
>
> For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
> email <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
> *subject*.
>
> UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by

> AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1769 - Release Date:
> 05/11/2008 07:17
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie
>
> Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all
posts on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3N0XopebvmAeaaRnthHFAY
>
> For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
> email <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
> *subject*.
>
> UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.

_________________________________________________________________
See the most popular videos on the web
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/115454061/direct/01/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie

Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all
posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/VT6dCgonZnmBiZYUymIUo

For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
email <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
*subject*.

UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.

This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government
Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) In
case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure
Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with
MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) On leaving the GSi this
email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

-----------------------------------------
Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie

Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all posts on
this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2nik6jWCzkcLyHAln35tIz

For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
email <email obscured>
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.

UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.

The information contained in this email is intended only for the person or
organization to which it is addressed.  If you have received it by mistake,
please disregard and notify the sender immediately.  Unauthorized disclosure or
use of such information may be a breach of legislation or confidentiality and
may be legally privileged.

Emails sent from and received by Members and employees of Norfolk County
Council may be monitored.  They may also be disclosed to other people under
legislation, particularly the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

Unless this email relates to Norfolk County Council business it will be
regarded by the Council as personal and will not be authorized by or sent on
behalf of the Council.  The sender will have sole responsibility for any legal
actions or disputes that may arise.
Thanks Simon, Mick, Tim and Fraser for your thoughts.

I totally agree that any metric/indicator that is developed should be
co-produced by citizens/users of services. I'm not interested in ROI
justification for online engagement rather insight into who is
participating in government lead online activities and why. Until
government truly adopts collaborative working there needs to be some
form of measurement of what does/doesn't work and why.

I would like to move to a more open, transparent and deliberative
practice to develop policy (something we continually speak of and refer
to) but in reality government isn't there yet and I need evidence to
illustrate this. Otherwise, we won't be able to conduct this type of
engagement process ourselves rather rely on other parties to undertake
the work. That's my take on things, anyway....

I'm going to revisit previous posts by Simon and review Headshift's blog
before progressing. If I set up a wiki as a way of co-producing some
sort of evaluation guide/framework for officials that covers all
channels (I totally agree that the focus shouldn't just be on the
internet) would people be interested in contributing?

Michelle

PS Thanks Laura from Hansard Society for forwarding me another public
participation evaluation report.

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf
Of simon collister
Sent: 05 November 2008 19:17
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation

I posted a while ago about setting KPIs for social sites/tools and
engagement in general *after* the site has been running. The idea being
it is counter-productive to set your own (top-down) targets and then
measure them. Instead we should let the users (society) develop their
own interactions/engagement with the site, set KPIs and measure
retrospectively.

FWIW My original post is here:
http://www.simoncollister.com/simonsays/2007/07/measuring-the-r.html

I also came across an article this week on measureing ROE rather than
ROI, although I'm not sure how relevant this is for government
departments(??):
http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/current-issue/e3i397aa99d293
2d77da8e287fb413c62d6?imw=Y

> From: <email obscured>
> To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation
> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 19:04:47 +0000
>
> As a practioner and researcher in local government I saw the need for
> metrics across all possible service channels, which as yet don't
exist.
> In fact I have the opinion that the commodification of government has
> increased the alienation and the way forward is to re-engage citizens
> (not customers) across all channels by delivering co-produced
services.
> This is a vast simplification of my theory but I see it all hanging
> togther...
>
> I'm not aware of any useful metrics, particularly ones that will cover

> all channels (to avoid social exclusion).
>
> Mick
>
> Http://greatemancipator.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf

> Of Lyons Michelle (DIUS)
> Sent: 05 November 2008 17:27
> To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>
> Subject: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation
>
>
> Apologies for cross posting...
>
> It dawned on me after reading numerous evaluation frameworks and
> reports that there isn't really any metrics/indicators that measure
> the impact of online engagement in the policy process.
>
> As central government, of which I'm a member, is increasingly turning
> to the internet to engage with new audiences it would be good to have
> a robust set of indicators and metrics that can be adopted by anyone.
> These measures would need to considered as an integral part of the
> overall evaluation of the engagement exercise.
>
> I have been looking at the following publications and I'm wondering
> whether there are any other evaluation publications that look at
> online engagement which I should be reviewing?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Michelle Lyons
>
>
> http://www.involve.org.uk/evaluation/
> http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/publications/evaluationgui
> de
> .pdf
> Hansard Society: Hearing Voices: The experience of online public
> consultations and discussions in UK governance
> http://www.socialwebanalytics.com/The_Social_Web_Analytics_eBook_2008.
> pd
> f
> http://www.iseing.org/egov/eGOV06/Accepted%20Papers/624/CRC/Evaluation
> %2 0of%20eParticipationv-v2-submitted.pdf
> http://oberon.sourceoecd.org/vl=1375501/cl=21/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/fullte
> xt ew.pl?prpsv=/ij/oecdthemes/99980096/v2005n21/s1/p1l.idx
> http://sth.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/4/512 - Does anyone
> have a pdf version?
>
> There are also a number of examples from the International Association

> for Public Participation and the IBM Centre for the Business of
> Government.
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
> partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.)
> On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications

> via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for

> legal purposes.
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie
>
> Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all
> posts on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7Mo4PzMz7eHHmzxQImYW41
>
> For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
> email <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
> *subject*.
>
> UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by

> AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1769 - Release Date:
> 05/11/2008 07:17
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie
>
> Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all
posts on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3N0XopebvmAeaaRnthHFAY
>
> For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
> email <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
> *subject*.
>
> UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.

_________________________________________________________________
See the most popular videos on the web
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/115454061/direct/01/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie

Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all
posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/VT6dCgonZnmBiZYUymIUo

For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
email <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
*subject*.

UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.

This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government
Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) In
case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure
Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with
MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) On leaving the GSi this
email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
This is one of those where metrics would be useful but need to be quite
sophisticated to be meaningful. We had an LSP meeting yesterday on developing
our joint public involvement framework but we couldn't think of any obvious
ones either.

Outcome measures are bit easier - we can use Place Survey or local data on
whether people feel they are able to influence decisions (and I'm never sure
why central government don't include satisfaction with their services in these
surveys so we can compare local and central government performance). If we get
that analysed by socio-economic group we can then see who is least engaged, as
we did for Norfolk in our Citizen's Panel.

Process metrics are harder - you want to know if all levels are engaging not
just the usual suspects. You could reference post codes of those participating
and use census or customer profiling tools to look at who is taking part. Even
on small scale engagement (like the work we do on Your Norfolk Your Say) you
would want a cross section of citizens taking part. Asking people's age is even
more useful as younger people are more likely to use online tools but less
likely to participate.

What none of these measure is quality of input and that is always going to be
largely subjective. Again, satisfaction with outcome is about all you can use.

I agree with Mick you need to use and evaluate against all channels. Only by
doing that can you identify which types of engagement and which groups
e-Participation is most valuable for and design participation exercises
effectively.

Mick is right - to engage a good cross section you want to use all channels.

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org]On Behalf Of
Mick Phythian
Sent: 05 November 2008 19:05
To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation

As a practioner and researcher in local government I saw the need for
metrics across all possible service channels, which as yet don't exist.
In fact I have the opinion that the commodification of government has
increased the alienation and the way forward is to re-engage citizens
(not customers) across all channels by delivering co-produced services.
This is a vast simplification of my theory but I see it all hanging
togther...

I'm not aware of any useful metrics, particularly ones that will cover
all channels (to avoid social exclusion).

Mick

Http://greatemancipator.com

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf
Of Lyons Michelle (DIUS)
Sent: 05 November 2008 17:27
To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>
Subject: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation

Apologies for cross posting...

It dawned on me after reading numerous evaluation frameworks and reports
that there isn't really any metrics/indicators that measure the impact
of online engagement in the policy process.

As central government, of which I'm a member, is increasingly turning to
the internet to engage with new audiences it would be good to have a
robust set of indicators and metrics that can be adopted by anyone.
These measures would need to considered as an integral part of the
overall evaluation of the engagement exercise.

I have been looking at the following publications and I'm wondering
whether there are any other evaluation publications that look at online
engagement which I should be reviewing?

Many thanks

Michelle Lyons

http://www.involve.org.uk/evaluation/
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/publications/evaluationguide
.pdf
Hansard Society: Hearing Voices: The experience of online public
consultations and discussions in UK governance
http://www.socialwebanalytics.com/The_Social_Web_Analytics_eBook_2008.pd
f
http://www.iseing.org/egov/eGOV06/Accepted%20Papers/624/CRC/Evaluation%2
0of%20eParticipationv-v2-submitted.pdf
http://oberon.sourceoecd.org/vl=1375501/cl=21/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/fulltext
ew.pl?prpsv=/ij/oecdthemes/99980096/v2005n21/s1/p1l.idx
http://sth.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/4/512 - Does anyone have
a pdf version?

There are also a number of examples from the International Association
for Public Participation and the IBM Centre for the Business of
Government.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) On
leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via
the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal
purposes.
-----------------------------------------
Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie

Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all
posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7Mo4PzMz7eHHmzxQImYW41

For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
email <email obscured>
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.

UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by
AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1769 - Release Date:
05/11/2008 07:17

-----------------------------------------
Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie

Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all posts on
this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3N0XopebvmAeaaRnthHFAY

For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
email <email obscured>
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.

UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.

The information contained in this email is intended only for the person or
organization to which it is addressed.  If you have received it by mistake,
please disregard and notify the sender immediately.  Unauthorized disclosure or
use of such information may be a breach of legislation or confidentiality and
may be legally privileged.

Emails sent from and received by Members and employees of Norfolk County
Council may be monitored.  They may also be disclosed to other people under
legislation, particularly the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

Unless this email relates to Norfolk County Council business it will be
regarded by the Council as personal and will not be authorized by or sent on
behalf of the Council.  The sender will have sole responsibility for any legal
actions or disputes that may arise.
I posted a while ago about setting KPIs for social sites/tools and engagement
in general *after* the site has been running. The idea being it is
counter-productive to set your own (top-down) targets and then measure them.
Instead we should let the users (society) develop their own
interactions/engagement with the site, set KPIs and measure retrospectively.

FWIW My original post is here:
http://www.simoncollister.com/simonsays/2007/07/measuring-the-r.html

I also came across an article this week on measureing ROE rather than ROI,
although I'm not sure how relevant this is for government departments(??):
http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/current-issue/e3i397aa99d2932d77da8e287fb413c62d6?imw=Y

> From: <email obscured>
> To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation
> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 19:04:47 +0000
>
> As a practioner and researcher in local government I saw the need for
> metrics across all possible service channels, which as yet don't exist.
> In fact I have the opinion that the commodification of government has
> increased the alienation and the way forward is to re-engage citizens
> (not customers) across all channels by delivering co-produced services.
> This is a vast simplification of my theory but I see it all hanging
> togther...
>
> I'm not aware of any useful metrics, particularly ones that will cover
> all channels (to avoid social exclusion).
>
> Mick
>
> Http://greatemancipator.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf
> Of Lyons Michelle (DIUS)
> Sent: 05 November 2008 17:27
> To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>
> Subject: [UKIE-EDem] Online engagement evaluation
>
>
> Apologies for cross posting...
>
> It dawned on me after reading numerous evaluation frameworks and reports
> that there isn't really any metrics/indicators that measure the impact
> of online engagement in the policy process.
>
> As central government, of which I'm a member, is increasingly turning to
> the internet to engage with new audiences it would be good to have a
> robust set of indicators and metrics that can be adopted by anyone.
> These measures would need to considered as an integral part of the
> overall evaluation of the engagement exercise.
>
> I have been looking at the following publications and I'm wondering
> whether there are any other evaluation publications that look at online
> engagement which I should be reviewing?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Michelle Lyons
>
>
> http://www.involve.org.uk/evaluation/
> http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/publications/evaluationguide
> .pdf
> Hansard Society: Hearing Voices: The experience of online public
> consultations and discussions in UK governance
> http://www.socialwebanalytics.com/The_Social_Web_Analytics_eBook_2008.pd
> f
> http://www.iseing.org/egov/eGOV06/Accepted%20Papers/624/CRC/Evaluation%2
> 0of%20eParticipationv-v2-submitted.pdf
> http://oberon.sourceoecd.org/vl=1375501/cl=21/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/fulltext
> ew.pl?prpsv=/ij/oecdthemes/99980096/v2005n21/s1/p1l.idx
> http://sth.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/4/512 - Does anyone have
> a pdf version?
>
> There are also a number of examples from the International Association
> for Public Participation and the IBM Centre for the Business of
> Government.
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
> partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) On
> leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via
> the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal
> purposes.
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie
>
> Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all
> posts on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7Mo4PzMz7eHHmzxQImYW41
>
> For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by
> AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1769 - Release Date:
> 05/11/2008 07:17
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/ukie
>
> Replies go to members of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange with all posts
on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3N0XopebvmAeaaRnthHFAY
>
> For digest version or to leave UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.

______________________________________