All posts in the topic Social media & local gov event 29th October (Short link)

Topic Navigation

Useful Links

Topics in UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange

Summary

There are 21 posts — by 9 authors — in this topic.
Latest post made by Jill Sanders at Sep 09 07:32 UTC

From: Dave Briggs Date: Sep 01 16:45 UTC Short link

Hi all

Just a quick note to inform you all about an event I'm running with
Peterborough City Council for local government types to find out about
what's going on in the sector with social media, web 2.0 and whatnot.

More info at http://davepress.net/2008/09/01/readwritegov/ with
booking at http://readwritegov.eventbrite.com/

From: Mick Date: Sep 01 18:58 UTC Short link

Thanks Dave, I'll circulate to colleagues - is it in competition with
the Socitm event? ;-)

By the way, I was reading up on the history of SOA (service oriented
architecture), which was posited by a Gartner consultant and there is a
recent Gartner paper suggesting that Web 2.0 is distracting from SOA,
which should be the real concern. Its one of those front versus back
office dialogues. This is in the general business sector.

For the public sector, to confuse metters, I'm trying to develop a
Citizen Oriented Architecture which is a mix of front office and
performance tools that could then meet with the back-office SOA.

Any views on SOA versus Web 2.0?

Mick http://greatemancipator.com

From: Dave Briggs Date: Sep 01 20:12 UTC Short link

Thanks Mick. Not in competition, but certainly a lot cheaper!

Dave

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Mick Phythian <mick@phythian.org.uk> wrote:
> Thanks Dave, I'll circulate to colleagues - is it in competition with
> the Socitm event? ;-)
>
> By the way, I was reading up on the history of SOA (service oriented
> architecture), which was posited by a Gartner consultant and there is a
> recent Gartner paper suggesting that Web 2.0 is distracting from SOA,
> which should be the real concern. Its one of those front versus back
> office dialogues. This is in the general business sector.
>
> For the public sector, to confuse metters, I'm trying to develop a
> Citizen Oriented Architecture which is a mix of front office and
> performance tools that could then meet with the back-office SOA.
>
> Any views on SOA versus Web 2.0?
>
> Mick http://greatemancipator.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf
> Of Dave Briggs
> Sent: 01 September 2008 17:45
> To: <email obscured>
> Subject: [UKIE-EDem] Social media & local gov event 29th October
>
>
> Hi all
>
> Just a quick note to inform you all about an event I'm running with
> Peterborough City Council for local government types to find out about
> what's going on in the sector with social media, web 2.0 and whatnot.
>
> More info at http://davepress.net/2008/09/01/readwritegov/ with booking
> at http://readwritegov.eventbrite.com/
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Dave Briggs
> <email obscured> | http://davepress.net | 07525 209589 (Mobile)
>
> -----------------------------------------
> 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/1AQvp7qNp456WflC7xgQfv
>
> 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: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.14/1644 - Release Date:
> 31/08/2008 16:59
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> 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/1IoVyHBcdn1hs1QUkh1U2W
>
> 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.
>



--
Dave Briggs
<email obscured> | http://davepress.net | 07525 209589 (Mobile)

From: Graham Lally Date: Sep 02 09:24 UTC Short link

Hi Mick,

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Mick Phythian wrote:

> By the way, I was reading up on the history of SOA (service oriented
> architecture), which was posited by a Gartner consultant and there is a
> recent Gartner paper suggesting that Web 2.0 is distracting from SOA,
> which should be the real concern.
>
> For the public sector, to confuse metters, I'm trying to develop a
> Citizen Oriented Architecture which is a mix of front office and
> performance tools that could then meet with the back-office SOA.

I'm not really sure exactly what SOA or Web 2.0 are (not that that seems
to stop me from using them ;) but doesn't thinking of politics in terms of
technology just distract from thinking of it in terms of ... politics?
IOW, is it better to think of it in terms of technology, or to look at the
underlying social/political cultures and attitudes that lead to the
development of those technologies?

I guess the above could sound quite academic, but I think without it, you
can end up going round in technology circles, or ending up in coding
cul-de-sacs. One of the main questions I can see is: how much do we want
to fragment our politics by fragmenting technological efforts? Is it
really a case now that a bunch of people get together and code whatever
form of democracy they want for their self-assembled group?

Having said that, from what I've seen, 90% of Web 2.0 *and* SOA appears to
be marketing and novelty hype... ;)

- graham

From: Mick Date: Sep 02 18:43 UTC Short link

I tend to agree with both Graham and David in different ways and for
differing reasons!

The concern is that politicians and their professional counterparts are
being encouraged towards Web 2.0 for those sexy (hype) reasons and I
still have concerns about accessibility! As to SOA, its been around for
12 years and should have been the foundation of e-government i.e. making
the data more accessible for things like the mashups favoured by W2
enthusiasts.

Gartner have been reasonably accurate in their e-gov predictions, so
they may be right in this case.

As to getting the citizens writing - nice idea but I await people truly
getting involved online, apart from a very small minority, normally with
a grudge! We established forums on our council web site which haven't
been used either by staff or the public, we have tried online budgetary
involvement with statistically insignificant feedback. We recently
provided a form to 'question the Leader' - 15 responses of unknown
quality but he seems pleased! But again what about the excluded?

Personalisation may pull a few more in but technology doesn't come
cheap, nor the people to develop and support it. According to the FT the
whole Blair e-gov spend was around eight billion, surely some ground
work on process and needs beforehand could have ensured a better spend?

Mick http://greatemancipator.com

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf
Of Graham Lally
Sent: 02 September 2008 10:24
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Social media & local gov event 29th October

Hi Mick,

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Mick Phythian wrote:

> By the way, I was reading up on the history of SOA (service oriented
> architecture), which was posited by a Gartner consultant and there is
> a recent Gartner paper suggesting that Web 2.0 is distracting from
> SOA, which should be the real concern.
>
> For the public sector, to confuse metters, I'm trying to develop a
> Citizen Oriented Architecture which is a mix of front office and
> performance tools that could then meet with the back-office SOA.

I'm not really sure exactly what SOA or Web 2.0 are (not that that seems
to stop me from using them ;) but doesn't thinking of politics in terms
of technology just distract from thinking of it in terms of ...
politics? IOW, is it better to think of it in terms of technology, or to
look at the underlying social/political cultures and attitudes that lead
to the development of those technologies?

I guess the above could sound quite academic, but I think without it,
you can end up going round in technology circles, or ending up in coding
cul-de-sacs. One of the main questions I can see is: how much do we want
to fragment our politics by fragmenting technological efforts? Is it
really a case now that a bunch of people get together and code whatever
form of democracy they want for their self-assembled group?

Having said that, from what I've seen, 90% of Web 2.0 *and* SOA appears
to be marketing and novelty hype... ;)

- graham

-----------------------------------------
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/5AsmPT4ZhhDgD6ud3E7yXS

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: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.14/1646 - Release Date:
01/09/2008 18:03

From: paul canning Date: Sep 04 11:06 UTC Short link

I have yet to see any of this stuff properly marketed to people. This is why
nobody uses it (or hardly anyone, or the usual suspects ... )

2008/9/2 Mick Phythian <mick@phythian.org.uk>

From: Dave Briggs Date: Sep 04 12:01 UTC Short link

2008/9/2 Mick Phythian <mick@phythian.org.uk>

>> As to getting the citizens writing - nice idea but I await people truly
>> getting involved online, apart from a very small minority, normally with
>> a grudge! We established forums on our council web site which haven't
>> been used either by staff or the public, we have tried online budgetary
>> involvement with statistically insignificant feedback.

I think the problem in the past has been the attitude of 'if we build
it they will come', which usually is the death knell for any social
web offering. This is especially true of forums, which I don't think
are the best way for online engagement to be run effectively. They are
good for support scenarious, and maybe to have an online presence of
an already existing offline community, but otherwise take up far too
much time to get going.

There are several important messages, I feel, for any level of
government wanting to get involved in the social web space:

1) dont expect people to turn up. As Paul C has written, publicise,
publicise, publicise
2) make it an imperitive (sp?) for officials to respond where
appropriate. It will die if nobody gets any replies.
3) Make it an as-well-as not an instead-of - new media doesn't kill old media
4) Accept criticism and messiness - stuff will happen you don't like.
But by engaging and being involved you've got a better chance of
turning it round than if you ignore it
5) choose the right tool for the job. Sometimes it will be a forum,
sometimes a blog, sometimes some other third thing. Make the barriers
to entry as low as possible. Don't try and force every project or
exercise into the same platform

More discussion around this stuff will of course be taking place in
Peterborough in October. Make sure you book your place!!

From: Mick Date: Sep 04 19:59 UTC Short link

Dave and Paul, I quite agree and don't think we haven't tried! I still
believe part of the issue was covered by that recent Demos report on
trust which I lectured the LG CIO Council on! We have a slow upward
journey to regain it...

But again, as I was asking, Front Office (Web 2.0 etc) versus the back
office (Service Oriented Architecture)? Why doesn't government just make
the data available for the masher-uppers?

Mick
-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf
Of Dave Briggs
Sent: 04 September 2008 13:01
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Social media & local gov event 29th October

 2008/9/2 Mick Phythian <mick@phythian.org.uk>

>> As to getting the citizens writing - nice idea but I await people
>> truly getting involved online, apart from a very small minority,
>> normally with a grudge! We established forums on our council web site

>> which haven't been used either by staff or the public, we have tried
>> online budgetary involvement with statistically insignificant
>> feedback.

I think the problem in the past has been the attitude of 'if we build it
they will come', which usually is the death knell for any social web
offering. This is especially true of forums, which I don't think are the
best way for online engagement to be run effectively. They are good for
support scenarious, and maybe to have an online presence of an already
existing offline community, but otherwise take up far too much time to
get going.

There are several important messages, I feel, for any level of
government wanting to get involved in the social web space:

1) dont expect people to turn up. As Paul C has written, publicise,
publicise, publicise
2) make it an imperitive (sp?) for officials to respond where
appropriate. It will die if nobody gets any replies.
3) Make it an as-well-as not an instead-of - new media doesn't kill old
media
4) Accept criticism and messiness - stuff will happen you don't like.
But by engaging and being involved you've got a better chance of turning
it round than if you ignore it
5) choose the right tool for the job. Sometimes it will be a forum,
sometimes a blog, sometimes some other third thing. Make the barriers to
entry as low as possible. Don't try and force every project or exercise
into the same platform

More discussion around this stuff will of course be taking place in
Peterborough in October. Make sure you book your place!!

Cheers

--
Dave Briggs
<email obscured> | http://davepress.net | 07525 209589 (Mobile)

-----------------------------------------
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/5QYzrg4vwL4W9rN8ZMqnOt

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: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1651 - Release Date:
04/09/2008 06:57

From: paul canning Date: Sep 04 20:18 UTC Short link

Kindof relevant, a story in the Daily Mail promoted me to post
How not to do video about
recycling<http://paulcanning.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-not-to-do-video-about-recycling.html>which
covers tips on making video go viral.

Newham council seems to be doing something right - I will attempt to find
out what.

Paul
2008/9/4 Mick Phythian <mick@phythian.org.uk>

> Dave and Paul, I quite agree and don't think we haven't tried! I still
> believe part of the issue was covered by that recent Demos report on
> trust which I lectured the LG CIO Council on! We have a slow upward
> journey to regain it...
>
> But again, as I was asking, Front Office (Web 2.0 etc) versus the back
> office (Service Oriented Architecture)? Why doesn't government just make
> the data available for the masher-uppers?
>
> Mick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf
> Of Dave Briggs
> Sent: 04 September 2008 13:01
> To: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Social media & local gov event 29th October
>
>
>  2008/9/2 Mick Phythian <mick@phythian.org.uk>
>
> >> As to getting the citizens writing - nice idea but I await people
> >> truly getting involved online, apart from a very small minority,
> >> normally with a grudge! We established forums on our council web site
>
> >> which haven't been used either by staff or the public, we have tried
> >> online budgetary involvement with statistically insignificant
> >> feedback.
>
> I think the problem in the past has been the attitude of 'if we build it
> they will come', which usually is the death knell for any social web
> offering. This is especially true of forums, which I don't think are the
> best way for online engagement to be run effectively. They are good for
> support scenarious, and maybe to have an online presence of an already
> existing offline community, but otherwise take up far too much time to
> get going.
>
> There are several important messages, I feel, for any level of
> government wanting to get involved in the social web space:
>
> 1) dont expect people to turn up. As Paul C has written, publicise,
> publicise, publicise
> 2) make it an imperitive (sp?) for officials to respond where
> appropriate. It will die if nobody gets any replies.
> 3) Make it an as-well-as not an instead-of - new media doesn't kill old
> media
> 4) Accept criticism and messiness - stuff will happen you don't like.
> But by engaging and being involved you've got a better chance of turning
> it round than if you ignore it
> 5) choose the right tool for the job. Sometimes it will be a forum,
> sometimes a blog, sometimes some other third thing. Make the barriers to
> entry as low as possible. Don't try and force every project or exercise
> into the same platform
>
> More discussion around this stuff will of course be taking place in
> Peterborough in October. Make sure you book your place!!
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Dave Briggs
> <email obscured> | http://davepress.net | 07525 209589 (Mobile)
>
> -----------------------------------------
> 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/5QYzrg4vwL4W9rN8ZMqnOt
>
> 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: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1651 - Release Date:
> 04/09/2008 06:57
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> 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/7LrLP4TnwAMXpBTVfkdbAh
>
> 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.
>



--
www.paulcanning.me.uk
web stuff and other ramblings
~~~~~~~~~~~

From: Mick Date: Sep 04 20:24 UTC Short link

Does that mean asking Richard Steele? He has a new blog now you know?
I'm currently working with his former boss!

Mick

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf
Of Paul Canning
Sent: 04 September 2008 21:18
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Social media & local gov event 29th October


Kindof relevant, a story in the Daily Mail promoted me to post How not
to do video about
recycling<http://paulcanning.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-not-to-do-video-ab
out-recycling.html>which
covers tips on making video go viral.

Newham council seems to be doing something right - I will attempt to
find out what.

Paul
2008/9/4 Mick Phythian <mick@phythian.org.uk>

> Dave and Paul, I quite agree and don't think we haven't tried! I still

> believe part of the issue was covered by that recent Demos report on
> trust which I lectured the LG CIO Council on! We have a slow upward
> journey to regain it...
>
> But again, as I was asking, Front Office (Web 2.0 etc) versus the back

> office (Service Oriented Architecture)? Why doesn't government just
> make the data available for the masher-uppers?
>
> Mick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf

> Of Dave Briggs
> Sent: 04 September 2008 13:01
> To: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Social media & local gov event 29th October
>
>
>  2008/9/2 Mick Phythian <mick@phythian.org.uk>
>
> >> As to getting the citizens writing - nice idea but I await people
> >> truly getting involved online, apart from a very small minority,
> >> normally with a grudge! We established forums on our council web
> >> site
>
> >> which haven't been used either by staff or the public, we have
> >> tried online budgetary involvement with statistically insignificant

> >> feedback.
>
> I think the problem in the past has been the attitude of 'if we build
> it they will come', which usually is the death knell for any social
> web offering. This is especially true of forums, which I don't think
> are the best way for online engagement to be run effectively. They are

> good for support scenarious, and maybe to have an online presence of
> an already existing offline community, but otherwise take up far too
> much time to get going.
>
> There are several important messages, I feel, for any level of
> government wanting to get involved in the social web space:
>
> 1) dont expect people to turn up. As Paul C has written, publicise,
> publicise, publicise
> 2) make it an imperitive (sp?) for officials to respond where
> appropriate. It will die if nobody gets any replies.
> 3) Make it an as-well-as not an instead-of - new media doesn't kill
> old media
> 4) Accept criticism and messiness - stuff will happen you don't like.
> But by engaging and being involved you've got a better chance of
> turning it round than if you ignore it
> 5) choose the right tool for the job. Sometimes it will be a forum,
> sometimes a blog, sometimes some other third thing. Make the barriers
> to entry as low as possible. Don't try and force every project or
> exercise into the same platform
>
> More discussion around this stuff will of course be taking place in
> Peterborough in October. Make sure you book your place!!
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Dave Briggs
> <email obscured> | http://davepress.net | 07525 209589 (Mobile)
>
> -----------------------------------------
> 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/5QYzrg4vwL4W9rN8ZMqnOt
>
> 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: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1651 - Release Date:
> 04/09/2008 06:57
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> 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/7LrLP4TnwAMXpBTVfkdbAh
>
> 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.
>



--
www.paulcanning.me.uk
web stuff and other ramblings
~~~~~~~~~~~

-----------------------------------------
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/3hyharF9AvMhWAQySUq7zp

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: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1651 - Release Date:
04/09/2008 06:57

From: Pete Thomson Date: Sep 05 09:17 UTC Short link

Mick wrote:

> Why doesn't government just make the data available for the masher-uppers?

I think because they want to own the front office, not just the back office.
They want the interaction to be visibly with government, not with (say)
MySociety or Facebook.

Are they right? Does democracy require the citizen to know which agency they're
interacting with, who's accountable, or does it just require a mechanism that
gets an effective response even if the citizen doesn't understand how?

From: Tim Anderson Date: Sep 05 09:54 UTC Short link

Not a simple answer. In terms of service delivery people don't need to know who
provides a service - just how to access it. In terms of public sector
transparency however we need to be able to demonstrate customer access volumes
and satisfaction and that is a lot easier if they at least pass our branded
websites at some point in the process.

In  terms of democracy however people do need to know who provides a service so
they can become engaged in the decision making process around how that service
is designed and delivered. Complaints about a bin not being emptied don't
really need to know who the right person is as long as it gets there. Trying to
change a decision on bin collection charges needs to know which authority will
make that choice.

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org]On Behalf Of
Pete Thomson
Sent: 05 September 2008 10:18
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Social media & local gov event 29th October

Mick wrote:

> Why doesn't government just make the data available for the masher-uppers?

I think because they want to own the front office, not just the back office.
They want the interaction to be visibly with government, not with (say)
MySociety or Facebook.

Are they right? Does democracy require the citizen to know which agency they're
interacting with, who's accountable, or does it just require a mechanism that
gets an effective response even if the citizen doesn't understand how?

-----------------------------------------
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/4pJZq6FeMAtOhlxANHkguz

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.

From: paul canning Date: Sep 05 10:34 UTC Short link

I think what Mick and others are talking about is the ability to do things
like this
http://paulcanning.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-view-of-london.html
which is web 2.0 meet e-dem.

Which shouldn't be confused with this (about widgets)
http://paulcanning.blogspot.com/2008/07/wouldnt-it-be-better-if.html
which is your 'service delivery' angle.

Or am I reading this argument wrongly?

Paul

2008/9/5 Pete Thomson <pete.thomson@wolverhampton.gov.uk>

From: Pete Thomson Date: Sep 05 11:06 UTC Short link

Well, you can see them as two distinct things, but then (as Tim's response
starts to indicate) the boundary isn't necessarily obvious. The people who make
policy decisions may not understand enough of the detail to draw it correctly.

More important, if you draw a boundary, you want people to cross it - to have
both easy access to routine services and the opportunity to engage with
decisions about those services.

So it's tempting to keep everything in your own branded site. You may think of
that as not drawing the undesirable boundary, but actually it draws the
boundary coterminous with your brand identity. You'll probably object when the
masher-uppers start to erode that, you'll struggle to generate significant
levels of real engagement, and any debate about your services that goes on
elsewhere doesn't engage you.

Those brave enough to resist this temptation, it seems to me, are still
struggling with the boundary problems.

From: paul canning Date: Sep 05 12:10 UTC Short link

2008/9/5 Pete Thomson <pete.thomson@wolverhampton.gov.uk>

> So it's tempting to keep everything in your own branded site. You may think
> of that as not drawing the undesirable boundary, but actually it draws the
> boundary coterminous with your brand identity.
>

pete, widgets allow you to draw people into your own 'branded' site - where
you can cross-sell, including stuff like 'comment on this service'.

what is government branding anyway? another 'swish' logo? another ridiculous
slogan? no, it's trust and more about what you do rather than what you say.

it seems to me less about boundaries than simple misunderstanding of how
services are sold online. the only vague sense I can understand this in is
the one generated by online advertising when you don't have 100% of the
context in which your ad sits.

You'll probably object when the masher-uppers start to erode that, you'll
struggle to generate significant levels of real engagement, and any debate
about your services that goes on elsewhere doesn't engage you.

doesn't need to engage you. use the tools and the knowledge out there to
monitor what's being said. that's what brands do. plus there's a serious
business case involved in investing in such tools and methods to drive
people to self-service and in finding out what their problems are.

From: Mick Date: Sep 06 08:40 UTC Short link

This has segmented and developed into even more topics!

But at it base we have technology delivering some services and it comes
down to should 'government' let all and sundry at data that may be
provided in confidence (or does the public really see it that way?)
rather than present it for controlled and measured use by its citizens?

There are differences between the US and the UK, that's why I hate the
present government borrowing ideas so heavily from there when Canada is
much more similar and ahead in many ways, but do they matter?

I think the data quality (trust) and digital inclusion arguments are
important, and govt needs to consider ALL citizens but as I've cut and
pasted some of this in my blog with some thoughts about 'intelligent
agents', I think its likely to be the future and we need to prepare
morally and structurally!

Mick http://greatemacipator.com

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org] On Behalf
Of Paul Canning
Sent: 05 September 2008 13:10
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Social media & local gov event 29th October

2008/9/5 Pete Thomson <pete.thomson@wolverhampton.gov.uk>

> So it's tempting to keep everything in your own branded site. You may
> think of that as not drawing the undesirable boundary, but actually it

> draws the boundary coterminous with your brand identity.
>

pete, widgets allow you to draw people into your own 'branded' site -
where you can cross-sell, including stuff like 'comment on this
service'.

what is government branding anyway? another 'swish' logo? another
ridiculous slogan? no, it's trust and more about what you do rather than
what you say.

it seems to me less about boundaries than simple misunderstanding of how
services are sold online. the only vague sense I can understand this in
is the one generated by online advertising when you don't have 100% of
the context in which your ad sits.

You'll probably object when the masher-uppers start to erode that,
you'll struggle to generate significant levels of real engagement, and
any debate about your services that goes on elsewhere doesn't engage
you.

doesn't need to engage you. use the tools and the knowledge out there to
monitor what's being said. that's what brands do. plus there's a serious
business case involved in investing in such tools and methods to drive
people to self-service and in finding out what their problems are.

cheers

paul
--
www.paulcanning.me.uk
web stuff and other ramblings
~~~~~~~~~~~

-----------------------------------------
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/2YPxoz9T0mITcLzvtEaPZo

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: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1652 - Release Date:
04/09/2008 18:54

From: David Newman Date: Sep 07 22:53 UTC Short link

Some years ago, at a Politics on the Internet conference in Tampere,
Finland (in January!), I heard about a Dutch experience. Their Ministry
of Transport had set up a discussion forum on their web site about a new
motorcycle helmet law. They got one posting a day.

At the same time, there were 50 messages each day on the Dutch Usenet
group for motorcycling (I said it was a while ago). That is where all
the motorcyclists used to hang out on-line. There they discussed their
trips, their bikes, repairs, and, when the subject came up, the new
helmet laws. They stayed in their usual hang-outs, rather than moving to
the Ministry site.

When councillors or officials want to meet their citizens, they don't
expect everyone to turn up in the Mayor's parlour. Instead they go to
where local people gather: the weekly market in a French town, an Irish
pub, an Essex shopping centre, a Welsh church.

The same applies on-line. Go to the virtual spaces where people hang
out, and engage with them there.

From: Pete Thomson Date: Sep 08 09:22 UTC Short link

Paul and Mick are right to flag up trust as a key part of this debate.

Mick comments on his blog:

> Government gets complaints for issuing incorrect bills and the public redress
but what if there is
> an intermediary displaying your Council Tax and getting it wrong?

Some years ago my own council had the experience of a local organisation
displaying contact details for our services and getting them wrong. This wasn't
exactly an intermediary, they had no connection with us at all, but the way the
information was presented made it look "official". This was a strong incentive
for us to develop and promote our own website (yes, we did need that, I said it
was some years ago). Much more recently, other councils have had similar
experiences with various other web services. They tend to leave us thinking:
you can't trust other organisations to present your information accurately, you
have to control it yourself. Or if we're being customer focused: customers will
learn they can't trust information on the web in general, so we have to build
the reputation of our own website as a source they can trust.

The democratic engagement versions: you can't trust discussion in other forums
to be representative, non-abusive or on topic. Citizens will learn that they
can't have a sensible discussion on the web in general. So we have to create
our own forums where we can ensure our standards of debate prevail.

Each of those positions contains, perhaps, just enough truth to make it
supportable, plus a good dash of FUD, and an assumption that the government
organisation still has the power to control what happens. In David's analogy -
if this area seems too rough for us to organise a public meeting, there may be
some groups in the pub or on the street corners talking about the issue, but we
can safely ignore what they're saying.

From: Tim Anderson Date: Sep 08 09:48 UTC Short link

Pete is right in some areas - people quickly learn what sites they can trust to
be accurate and fair and generally local council sites are trusted to be
accurate. Fair I'm not sure about as public scepticism around inbuilt bias of
public sector led debates is a bit high for comfort.

Whether we can ignore debates in other places is a separate issue. One of the
findings of the e-Voice Interreg project (n ot to be confused with ICELE's
VOICE) was that you need to understand the groups you want to engage with and
what the best channels for them were rather than a one size fits all process.
Intermediary groups and individuals are often key in this as the private sector
knows. If you want to engage groups with existing web presences you engage via
those places rather than setting up a new one. You may want to direct them to
the new site so there is cross fertilisation but the starting point is where
they are now.

We also have a duty to weigh up the validity of responses as well as their
volume. We know the middle classes are more likely to participate and there are
strong pressure groups who will mobilise their supporters to take part. There
are other groups who are woefully under-represented and who we need to work
harder to woo. The group in the pub cannot be ignored but you have to think
about how much weight their views have and how considered a response you are
getting from them.

And we must never forget that at the end of the day politicians were elected to
decide on what they see as the best alternative. If we left it to public
consultation we would never site any bustops.

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:ukie@groups.dowire.org]On Behalf Of
Pete Thomson
Sent: 08 September 2008 10:24
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Social media & local gov event 29th October

Paul and Mick are right to flag up trust as a key part of this debate.

Mick comments on his blog:

> Government gets complaints for issuing incorrect bills and the public redress
but what if there is
> an intermediary displaying your Council Tax and getting it wrong?

Some years ago my own council had the experience of a local organisation
displaying contact details for our services and getting them wrong. This wasn't
exactly an intermediary, they had no connection with us at all, but the way the
information was presented made it look "official". This was a strong incentive
for us to develop and promote our own website (yes, we did need that, I said it
was some years ago). Much more recently, other councils have had similar
experiences with various other web services. They tend to leave us thinking:
you can't trust other organisations to present your information accurately, you
have to control it yourself. Or if we're being customer focused: customers will
learn they can't trust information on the web in general, so we have to build
the reputation of our own website as a source they can trust.

The democratic engagement versions: you can't trust discussion in other forums
to be representative, non-abusive or on topic. Citizens will learn that they
can't have a sensible discussion on the web in general. So we have to create
our own forums where we can ensure our standards of debate prevail.

Each of those positions contains, perhaps, just enough truth to make it
supportable, plus a good dash of FUD, and an assumption that the government
organisation still has the power to control what happens. In David's analogy -
if this area seems too rough for us to organise a public meeting, there may be
some groups in the pub or on the street corners talking about the issue, but we
can safely ignore what they're saying.

-----------------------------------------
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/7xnFY06zwbhRcJ66lbcheM

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.

From: Gez Smith Date: Sep 08 14:26 UTC Short link

Absolutely spot on, the online / offline analogy is so staringly
fitting it's amazing it's not mentioned more.

The reasons it doesn't happen seem to be because people don't realise
that lots of people use the internet for discussion already (the whole
'our residents don't use the internet' fallacy) and that there are
some interests strongly vested in trying to rebuild the spaces that
already exist elsewhere, both on an authority and on a supplier side.
A massive tragedy, and one i'm doing what i can from a supplier side
to get rid of, including dispelling some of the myths about the wider
internet i keep seeing propagated for commercial gain.

_________________________________

Gez Smith
e-Democracy Consultant
Delib, Ropemaker Court, 11 Lower Park Row, Bristol, BS1 5BN
T:+44 (0)845 638 1848
F:+44 (0) 117 316 9512
W: www.delib.co.uk

:: Catch all the latest participation advice and news: www.delib.co.uk/dblog




On 7 Sep 2008, at 23:53, D. R. Newman wrote:

> Some years ago, at a Politics on the Internet conference in Tampere,
> Finland (in January!), I heard about a Dutch experience. Their
> Ministry
> of Transport had set up a discussion forum on their web site about a
> new
> motorcycle helmet law. They got one posting a day.
>
> At the same time, there were 50 messages each day on the Dutch Usenet
> group for motorcycling (I said it was a while ago). That is where all
> the motorcyclists used to hang out on-line. There they discussed their
> trips, their bikes, repairs, and, when the subject came up, the new
> helmet laws. They stayed in their usual hang-outs, rather than
> moving to
> the Ministry site.
>
> When councillors or officials want to meet their citizens, they don't
> expect everyone to turn up in the Mayor's parlour. Instead they go to
> where local people gather: the weekly market in a French town, an
> Irish
> pub, an Essex shopping centre, a Welsh church.
>
> The same applies on-line. Go to the virtual spaces where people hang
> out, and engage with them there.
>
> --
> Dr. David R. Newman, Queen's University Belfast, School of Management
> and Economics, BELFAST BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland (UK)
> Tel. +44 28 9097 3643 mailto:d.r.newman@qub.ac.uk
> http://www.qub.ac.uk/mgt/ http://www.e-consultation.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/lAwZ7c4whyFKrxFhkrKoT
>
> 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.

From: Jill Sanders Date: Sep 09 07:32 UTC Short link

Online Communities never wanted to generate information that should be at
home on another website - such as council contact details for example.  Our
policy is always to link to the source where it is kept updated by the
people who should be doing that job.  However, some local authorities now
hide behind customer services single email/call centres and local people
find this unsatisfactory and frustrating,.

It is very hard to produce good public debate on the internet which is why
our Voxpop went to some lengths to ensure (as far as we could) that people
spoke under their own names and identities.  Funny how much more careful
they are then.  In general, people only get active when they have something
to tackle, something to say, such as an unpopular planning proposal, or
changes to local education, or parking zoning, etc.  On the whole the public
is pretty supine which is why councils and local politicians really don't
like active citizens.  Active citizens are usually campaigning citizens and
hostile citizens.  I don't see this changing.  It is human nature.  To give
them some power, to enable them to be more successful in their efforts, is
not welcome by the authorities.
Best wishes
Jill

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Thomson" <pete.thomson@wolverhampton.gov.uk>
To: <ukie@groups.dowire.org>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Social media & local gov event 29th October

Paul and Mick are right to flag up trust as a key part of this debate.

Mick comments on his blog:

> Government gets complaints for issuing incorrect bills and the public
> redress but what if there is
> an intermediary displaying your Council Tax and getting it wrong?

Some years ago my own council had the experience of a local organisation
displaying contact details for our services and getting them wrong. This
wasn't exactly an intermediary, they had no connection with us at all, but
the way the information was presented made it look "official". This was a
strong incentive for us to develop and promote our own website (yes, we did
need that, I said it was some years ago). Much more recently, other councils
have had similar experiences with various other web services. They tend to
leave us thinking: you can't trust other organisations to present your
information accurately, you have to control it yourself. Or if we're being
customer focused: customers will learn they can't trust information on the
web in general, so we have to build the reputation of our own website as a
source they can trust.

The democratic engagement versions: you can't trust discussion in other
forums to be representative, non-abusive or on topic. Citizens will learn
that they can't have a sensible discussion on the web in general. So we have
to create our own forums where we can ensure our standards of debate
prevail.

Each of those positions contains, perhaps, just enough truth to make it
supportable, plus a good dash of FUD, and an assumption that the government
organisation still has the power to control what happens. In David's
analogy - if this area seems too rough for us to organise a public meeting,
there may be some groups in the pub or on the street corners talking about
the issue, but we can safely ignore what they're saying.

-----------------------------------------
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/7xnFY06zwbhRcJ66lbcheM

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.

Add to the topic Social media & local gov event 29th October [?]

You cannot post because you are not logged in. If you are a member UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange, login to post to this topic. Otherwise sign up, become a member of UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange, and post to this topic.

☺