Posts in Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation

Change.Gov Open for Questions From: Michael Allan Date: Dec 30 09:09 UTC Short link

<email obscured> wrote:

> ... If I read the history correctly the platform itself was burried
> in party politics but the effort to provide a wide open wiki for
> people to edit a common policy document and provide a rationale for
> every edit seemed to enable a different kind of discussion to emerge
> ( and openolitics.org was born). Find those young social
> entrepreneurs and pick their brains for solutions to the dilemmma of
> too much long winded input ("Listen to me!!") with no gestalt.

  http://openpolitics.ca/

Right in my back yard, and I never heard of it!  I should learn to
talk to my neighbours.

The project's inactive, but I've added it to my summary comparison of
online systems for consensus building:

  http://zelea.com/project/votorola/compare.xht

If anyone knows of similar efforts (past or present), please let me
know.  Best,
    

--
Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/

ref: http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/1BvzVLqda5LumI97wIEI2d

Change.Gov Open for Questions From: Tim Bonnemann Date: Dec 29 22:43 UTC Short link

Note: This is in reply to Steven's post on Newswire from earlier today:
"Change.Gov Open for Questions"
(http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2wU5NtJhagJuMR7MDj3Ii7)

Hi,

For those interested in metrics, I did some monitoring (and a bit of number
crunching) during the first installment of "Open for Questions", which happened
on December 10 and 11, 2008. See my notes on Flickr for details:

  http://flickr.com/photos/planspark/3098292591/in/set-72157611439707906/

I found three main issues (read: opportunities for improvement) with Google
Moderator and its use for large-scale e-participation projects such as this
one:

1.  There seems to be significant bias towards those relatively few entries
(questions) that manage to gain an early lead in net votes.  This is most
likely due to the fact that Google Moderator exposes only one single view into
the data (questions are sorted -- in descending order -- by number of net
votes).  The only way to navigate to entries lower on the list is to browse the
list page by page (always starting from the top).  Though view counts aren't
available, this very likely means that the top entries get a disproportionate
piece of the participants' combined attention (and hence, relatively more
votes).
2.  The sheer number of contributions (and the time it would take to read them
all) makes it nearly impossible for anyone to stay on top of what has already
been said. Though I haven't verified this in detail, my guess is that this
leads to a lot of noise (e.g. duplicate or overlapping entries) as we move down
the long tail. Presumably, this fragmentation also reinforces the first issue
as it makes it harder for entries at the bottom to gain enough votes to move to
the top.
3.  As with many similar projects using similar systems, the participants --
when given the opportunity to give input that has been promised to be heard --
bring a lot of energy to the table (e.g. in terms of breadth and depth of
input, questions per participant, votes per participant etc.), yet none of that
energy is harnessed to help add structure, reduce the level of noise or improve
the overall quality of the questions. To give just one example, it would help
tremendously if users could identify related (overlapping or duplicate) entries
and ask the respective authors to maybe merge their questions.

Needless to say, it's great to see something like "Open for Questions" happen
in the first place. It's worth mentioning, too, that the Change.gov team is
iterating quickly in trying to address some of these challenges: the current
installment already adds a little bit of structure (questions are now split up
into eight different topic areas).

Would love to hear if any of you have seen similar issues elsewhere or know of
any examples where these challenges have been addressed successfully. Thanks!
    

Tim

Change.gov launches online discussion around healthcare 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

Change.gov launches online discussion around healthcare 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/
    

Change.gov launches online discussion around healthcare 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

Change.gov launches online discussion around healthcare 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.

Change.gov launches online discussion around healthcare 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

Change.gov launches online discussion around healthcare 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
>
>
>

Change.gov launches online discussion around healthcare 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

Read any useful research lately, unanswered research questions From: Steven Clift Date: Sep 26 18:35 UTC Short link

I've drafted up some of the research questions/topics to share at the EDem2008
conference in Krebs next Monday.

These are some of the things that as a "practitioner" I am interested in seeing
research that helps shape effective action in the field.

Do you like any of them?

Steven Clift

Research Questions/Topics - 20 Questions.

1. Time use studies - Where are people (and different types of people) actually
spending their time online/on-screen? Insights would be much more useful than
just what people are clicking on regularly or have done once or regularly.
Governments et al continue to underestimate the value of e-mail and have little
understanding of the preciousness of an actual "citizen" site visitor .

2. How do you design personalized information services about politics and
government that people will find useful?

3. Is Facebook/MySpace/LinkedIn etc. building a sense of "public life" -
bridging social capital? Does it manifest itself in local communities? Are
there blocks/barriers that keep networking oriented to private/business life?

4. Civic/government video on-demand via cable television, Tivo access, etc.
advantages/possibilities versus computer/Internet-only.

5. How does one have the greatest influence on open source projects in terms of
introducing social good goals? Can you gain support for integrating geographic
support against the expectation that the Internet is global and helps one
escape place?

6. We need broad baseline representative survey that moves beyond Internet use
in elections or political news seeking to participation in governance,
community building, neighbor to neighbor connection etc. -

7. With Issues Forums and other local e-democracy "interventions" we
longitudinal starting point surveys on general population/participant/former
partiticipant online political activities/trust in government/civic
desires/forum expectations/etc. that allow comparisons before and after
interventions.

8. Cost-benefit analysis - With limited funding, what can a community get out
of 10,000 Euros, 100,000 Euros, 1,000,000 Euros - what creates the most value
now, what investments lower costs for next generation activities.

9. Research on government staffing and budget allocations to e-democracy
activities. Does a government have staff assigned to provide e-democracy
services? If yes, how many and where are they positioned? Does a government
have a "democracy portal" (or website section) and do public participation
staff (if they exist) or public information (PR) staff maintain that
directory/content? Compare governments to other governments, per capita
spending on e-democracy. Allowances for parliamentary/executive structural
differences would be required.

10. Interview those in power anonymously about their real attitudes toward
public participation and e-democracy opportunities. Would they allocate
resources (how much) to provide personalized notification of new
decision-making content even if it would provide the public timely access and
potentially reduce their power? Quantitative and qualitative surveys of elected
officials and civil servants.

11. Compare the legal frameworks and recent law/rule changes that require the
use of the Internet for greater government transparency, openness,
consultation, etc. Identify what brought about those changes (election
promises, agency proposals, citizen lobbying, etc.) and draft model legislation
with policy options clearly laid out.

12. Identify the resistance points to timely and deep online access to
decision-making information and public meeting documents - before, during, and
after meeting.

13. What is the impact of timely information access - some before and after
research.

14. Estonia. Estonia. Estonia. The document register, e-cabinet, x-road, TID,
consultation portal, etc. - dig in and provide analysis of who, what, when,
why, where, usage, and lessons.

15. Open source opportunities for e-democracy. What are the twenty top
candidates for e-democracy tool creation of mutual interest by
governments/civil society/media? Compare potential costs and sustainability of
new stand alone tools versus creating modules for use with leading open source
content management systems.

16. What is the path to direct legislative, etc. database sharing in XML from
government to third parties? Why do groups like MySociety (UK), GovTrack (US),
etc. need to "scrape" legislative data from websites to convert into XML for
others instead of direct real-time government provision? Related question -
Most local governments do not have legislative information systems like
national and regional parliaments. Design a prototype local legislative
(decision-making) system and open standards.

17. What are the best models for parliamentary/legislative
technology/information staff to work together to advance online services -
vision, staffing, future features? What features do these inside leader
see/seek to develop and how can they be supported?

18. Compare opportunities for public investment in public interest content and
interactivity online with and beyond the confines public broadcasting. Compare
public broadcasters, major media/news web 2.0/e-democracy/e-participation
strategies and approaches within and across countries.

19. Analyze citizen-based "local-up" uses of online tools and models for
political participation.Document success/failure factors.

20. Model a system that provide yearly distribution of 10 Euros/Dollar per
capita from government in your country to support civil society and multi-level
government e-democracy/public interest online content/interactivity/servces.
Design a mechanism that distributes those resources and provides for
accountability and the leveraging of experience, technology, and project
accountability.