All posts in the topic Public information review (Short link)

Topic Navigation

Useful Links

Topics in UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange

Summary

There are 36 posts — by 18 authors — in this topic.
Latest post made by Tom Steinberg at 2007 Apr 29 22:44 UTC

From: Tom Steinberg Date: 2007 Mar 27 10:25 UTC Short link

Hello all,

This is only partly an edemocracy issues, but it touches close enough to
things like Netmums and TheyWorkForYou to make it worth posting here.

I've been asked to run a review with the cabinet office on public
information produced by both the public sector, and citizens chatting and
exchanging ideas like on list list.

I'm doing this 2 days a week, as a non mySociety task, with a little team
working full time in the Cabinet Office. I'm starting to blog about it on my
old neglected personal blog, as a better alternative than some official
.gov.uk site. I'm really posting just to let you know that I'm doing it, and
to pose a first question - who should we go and talk to?

http://steiny.typepad.com/premise/2007/03/so_who_should_w.html

Answers on a comment-post please. Oh, and of course feel free to fire
questions about the whole thing, I know I've not exactly explained much.

From: Steven Clift Date: 2007 Mar 27 17:53 UTC Short link

Tom,

Could you explain how this themes in this article from the Guardian:

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,2009974,00.html

... relates to your actual remit.  I am trying to get a sense of the
distinction between public information re-use (like a TheyWorkForYou
type site) versus "information sharing" where perhaps a link to a
government document prompts active discussion on NetMums or a local
Issues Forum which could/should be looped back into government more
actively.


Cheers,
Steven Clift
E-Democracy.Org
^               ^               ^                ^
Steven L. Clift    -   -  -  W: http://publicus.net
Minneapolis    -   -   -  -   E: <email obscured>
Minnesota  -   -   -   -   -   - T: +1.612.822.8667
USA    -   -   -   -     Skype/MSN/Y!/AIM: netclift

Join Democracies Online: http://dowire.org
Start an Issues Forum: http://e-democracy.org/if

From: Tom Steinberg Date: 2007 Apr 09 16:29 UTC Short link

> Could you explain how this themes in this article from the Guardian:
>
>  http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,2009974,00.html
>
> ... relates to your actual remit.  I am trying to get a sense of the
> distinction between public information re-use (like a TheyWorkForYou
> type site) versus "information sharing" where perhaps a link to a
> government document prompts active discussion on NetMums or a local
> Issues Forum which could/should be looped back into government more
> actively.

Well, I think you've hit the nail on the head yourself, Steve, it is
about both. The review is about both traditional public sector
information questions, like what's valuable and how it should be
accessed, plus the newer ones of how people use online communities to
fix things in their own lives.

Where the overlaps between the two halves happen is interesting, too.

From: Ella Taylor-Smith Date: 2007 Apr 10 08:16 UTC Short link

Hi Tom,

is it just about personal information or does it include other sorts
(e.g. broadly educational info like how much salt to put in your alcohol
level?)

-Ella


Well, I think you've hit the nail on the head yourself, Steve, it is
about both. The review is about both traditional public sector
information questions, like what's valuable and how it should be
accessed, plus the newer ones of how people use online communities to
fix things in their own lives.

Where the overlaps between the two halves happen is interesting, too.

Tom



>
> Cheers,
> Steven Clift
> E-Democracy.Org
> ^               ^               ^                ^
> Steven L. Clift    -   -  -  W: http://publicus.net
> Minneapolis    -   -   -  -   E: <email obscured>
> Minnesota  -   -   -   -   -   - T: +1.612.822.8667
> USA    -   -   -   -     Skype/MSN/Y!/AIM: netclift
>
> Join Democracies Online: http://dowire.org Start an Issues Forum:
> http://e-democracy.org/if
>
>
> Member profile for Steven Clift:
> http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/stevenclift
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/main/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/33jiY08SHLow9Ysg6mXEeJ
>
> 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
New: www.NeighbourhoodFixIt.com

Member profile for Tom Steinberg:
http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/tomsteinberg


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

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

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 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.

From: Tom Steinberg Date: 2007 Apr 10 08:27 UTC Short link

> is it just about personal information or does it include other sorts
> (e.g. broadly educational info like how much salt to put in your alcohol
> level?)

It is actually exlusively not about personal, private information like
health records. The government already seems to be doing lots on that
sort of issue, but what I'm interested in is what tricks are being
missed around entirely non-confidential information, whether created
by government or people swapping tips online.

best,

Tom

> -Ella
>
>
> Well, I think you've hit the nail on the head yourself, Steve, it is
> about both. The review is about both traditional public sector
> information questions, like what's valuable and how it should be
> accessed, plus the newer ones of how people use online communities to
> fix things in their own lives.
>
> Where the overlaps between the two halves happen is interesting, too.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Steven Clift
> > E-Democracy.Org
> > ^               ^               ^                ^
> > Steven L. Clift    -   -  -  W: http://publicus.net
> > Minneapolis    -   -   -  -   E: <email obscured>
> > Minnesota  -   -   -   -   -   - T: +1.612.822.8667
> > USA    -   -   -   -     Skype/MSN/Y!/AIM: netclift
> >
> > Join Democracies Online: http://dowire.org Start an Issues Forum:
> > http://e-democracy.org/if
> >
> >
> > Member profile for Steven Clift:
> > http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/stevenclift
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> >
> > Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> > http://groups.dowire.org/main/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/33jiY08SHLow9Ysg6mXEeJ
> >
> > 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
> New: www.NeighbourhoodFixIt.com
>
> Member profile for Tom Steinberg:
> http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/tomsteinberg
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/main/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/
>
> 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 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.
>
> Member profile for Ella Smith:
> http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/smithella
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/main/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/
>
> 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
New: www.NeighbourhoodFixIt.com

From: Sophia Collins Date: 2007 Apr 10 10:28 UTC Short link

I'm still not entirely clear on the scope of this review and what you're
interested in. The Guardian article refers to, "permitting civil
servants to post information on sites" in the first paragraph. I assume
this means government going to where people are talking and joining in
that conversation, instead of government setting out it's stall and
expecting people to visit?

I told the story on our blog about accidentally being in Nepal for the
revolution. I met a guy from the British Embassy who thought it was
ridiculous that he couldn't post travel advisory information on the
Lonely Planet forum. That was where travelers were discussing the
situation, desparate for info and clarification, but it wasn't foreign
office policy to join in.

This example stuck in my mind, but there's obviously lots more. Is that
the kind of interaction you're considering? Or are we talking about
repackaging of data? Or government funding grassroots forums? Or all of
the above? The Guardian article seems to be pretty vague.

And would you prefer this as a blog post?

Sophia Collins
Producer
I'm a Councillor
www.bigvote.org.uk

Gallomanor Communications Ltd
www.gallomanor.com
01225 869413
31 Silver Street
Bradford on Avon
BA15 1JX

Creating community conversations

Gallomanor Communications Ltd.
Registered in England & Wales, No. 03980700.
Registered Address: Duckmead Cottage, Farleigh Wick, Bradford-on-Avon,
BA15 2PU

Tom Steinberg wrote:
>> is it just about personal information or does it include other sorts
>> (e.g. broadly educational info like how much salt to put in your alcohol
>> level?)
>
> It is actually exlusively not about personal, private information like
> health records. The government already seems to be doing lots on that
> sort of issue, but what I'm interested in is what tricks are being
> missed around entirely non-confidential information, whether created
> by government or people swapping tips online.
>
> best,
>
> Tom
>
>> -Ella
>>
>>
>> Well, I think you've hit the nail on the head yourself, Steve, it is
>> about both. The review is about both traditional public sector
>> information questions, like what's valuable and how it should be
>> accessed, plus the newer ones of how people use online communities to
>> fix things in their own lives.
>>
>> Where the overlaps between the two halves happen is interesting, too.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Steven Clift
>>> E-Democracy.Org
>>> ^               ^               ^                ^
>>> Steven L. Clift    -   -  -  W: http://publicus.net
>>> Minneapolis    -   -   -  -   E: <email obscured>
>>> Minnesota  -   -   -   -   -   - T: +1.612.822.8667
>>> USA    -   -   -   -     Skype/MSN/Y!/AIM: netclift
>>>
>>> Join Democracies Online: http://dowire.org Start an Issues Forum:
>>> http://e-democracy.org/if
>>>
>>>
>>> Member profile for Steven Clift:
>>> http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/stevenclift
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
>>> http://groups.dowire.org/main/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/33jiY08SHLow9Ysg6mXEeJ
>>>
>>> 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
>> New: www.NeighbourhoodFixIt.com
>>
>> Member profile for Tom Steinberg:
>> http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/tomsteinberg
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
>> http://groups.dowire.org/main/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/
>>
>> 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 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.
>>
>> Member profile for Ella Smith:
>> http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/smithella
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
>> http://groups.dowire.org/main/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/
>>
>> 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: Tom Steinberg Date: 2007 Apr 10 18:10 UTC Short link

On 4/10/07, Sophia Collins <sophia@gallomanor.com> wrote:
> I'm still not entirely clear on the scope of this review and what you're
> interested in.

There was actually a press release today:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2007/070405_power.asp

> The Guardian article refers to, "permitting civil
> servants to post information on sites" in the first paragraph. I assume
> this means government going to where people are talking and joining in
> that conversation, instead of government setting out it's stall and
> expecting people to visit?

This is definitely one angle I want to look at. Your story is
excellent as well. Do you have a specific permalink to the original?

> This example stuck in my mind, but there's obviously lots more. Is that
> the kind of interaction you're considering? Or are we talking about
> repackaging of data?

That's part of it too. What formats & licences data is released under
is definitely in the remit.

> Or government funding grassroots forums? Or all of
> the above? The Guardian article seems to be pretty vague.

Indeed, all the above.

As for whether you should reply on a blog post, the choice is yours.
If you do, rememeber to post the link here.

From: Fraser Henderson Date: 2007 Apr 11 06:44 UTC Short link

I'm starting to get this now...thanks for the cabinet office link.

  Here are my favourite citizen<>citizen information sharing sites:-

  www.moneysavingexpert.co.uk (forums)
  www.tripadvisor.com
  www.holidaysuncovered.co.uk
  www.honestjohn.co.uk
  www.which.net (forums)
  http://reviews.cnet.com
  www.hotukdeals.co.uk

  I think there's a lot of opportunity for government to interject ;
particularly if you take a look at the likes of moneysavingexpert.co.uk where
people are talking about tax credits, green consumerism, public transport etc.
Often you get shop 'insiders' post in an official capacity but I can't help
thinking it would be better outside the thread in a seperate devoted category.

  A common theme is the high visibiity nature of the website hosts.  Just as we
have champions in government, perhaps successful citizen sites need their own
champions - but portrayed in a similar way to celebrity.

Any other sites?

Tom Steinberg <tom@mysociety.org> wrote:
  On 4/10/07, Sophia Collins wrote:
> I'm still not entirely clear on the scope of this review and what you're
> interested in.

There was actually a press release today:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2007/070405_power.asp

> The Guardian article refers to, "permitting civil
> servants to post information on sites" in the first paragraph. I assume
> this means government going to where people are talking and joining in
> that conversation, instead of government setting out it's stall and
> expecting people to visit?

This is definitely one angle I want to look at. Your story is
excellent as well. Do you have a specific permalink to the original?

> This example stuck in my mind, but there's obviously lots more. Is that
> the kind of interaction you're considering? Or are we talking about
> repackaging of data?

That's part of it too. What formats & licences data is released under
is definitely in the remit.

> Or government funding grassroots forums? Or all of
> the above? The Guardian article seems to be pretty vague.

Indeed, all the above.

As for whether you should reply on a blog post, the choice is yours.
If you do, rememeber to post the link here.

best,

Tom

Member profile for Tom Steinberg:
http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/tomsteinberg

From: Sophia Collins Date: 2007 Apr 11 12:08 UTC Short link

I'd add http://thorntree.lonelyplanet.com/ - I'd never go anywhere
without checking it. Foreign office staff should definitely be empowered
to post there when necessary. My blog post mentioning this was at
http://www.gallomanor.com/2007/03/mumpower.html but it adds little to
what I've already told you. I get the impression posting on forums is
regarded with deep suspicion by older/more senior civil servants and the
younger ones who get it aren't in a position to challenge that idea.

This creates a very artificial barrier between citizens and government.
It must also create a strange disjunct for the staff concerned - who
would use sites in a personal capacity, but have to pretend they can't
see them at work.

Does there need to be a government list of sites to post to, or does
there just need to be a general guidance on staff posting? Your review
can't identify every potentially relevant information sharing forum, but
workers in a given field will come across them in the course of their
work. This involves delegating decision-making (and communication!)
authority. The Cabinet Office will be delighted I'm sure.

There are various other information sharing sites/forums that I use a
lot, but that I can't see the government having much of a role in (for
example http://www.beerintheevening.com/). Although, that said, why
shouldn't Environmental Health Officers post significant findings to pub
and restaurant review sites?

The possibilities multiply endlessly. It's hard to think of many
examples where it would *never* be appropriate. There would come a
credibility issue however in some areas, for example unsolicited
government drugs education posted on clubbing sites. The police would be
even less welcome. The test is perhaps 'will users find this information
useful and welcome?' and not, 'what do WE want them to know (or think)?'
This is not perhaps a perspective natural to the government.

I certainly think it makes a lot more sense for civil servants to post
info to relevant 'naturally occuring' forums, rather than Inland Revenue
or someone having their own forum. Because let's face it, it would
probably be a bit rubbish. I assume you've looked at Talk Swindon
(http://www.talkswindon.org/) which is an independently run site, but
includes discussion of and contributions from the lovely Swindon Borough
Council.

And finally, don't forget to consider email lists. I belong to several
and find them a significant way to keep track of what's happening in
various fields. Although it is a slightly different ethos and many (like
this one) do have public employees posting to them.

I hope these thoughts are in any way helpful. I meant blog comment (i.e.
on Premise), rather than post, but feel this has gone on too long for
that now.

Best wishes,

Sophia

Sophia Collins
Producer
I'm a Councillor
www.bigvote.org.uk

Gallomanor Communications Ltd
www.gallomanor.com
01225 869413
31 Silver Street
Bradford on Avon
BA15 1JX

Creating community conversations

Gallomanor Communications Ltd.
Registered in England & Wales, No. 03980700.
Registered Address: Duckmead Cottage, Farleigh Wick, Bradford-on-Avon,
BA15 2PU

Henderson EP wrote:
> I'm starting to get this now...thanks for the cabinet office link.
>
>   Here are my favourite citizen<>citizen information sharing sites:-
>
>   www.moneysavingexpert.co.uk (forums)
>   www.tripadvisor.com
>   www.holidaysuncovered.co.uk
>   www.honestjohn.co.uk
>   www.which.net (forums)
>   http://reviews.cnet.com
>   www.hotukdeals.co.uk
>
>   I think there's a lot of opportunity for government to interject ;
particularly if you take a look at the likes of moneysavingexpert.co.uk where
people are talking about tax credits, green consumerism, public transport etc.
Often you get shop 'insiders' post in an official capacity but I can't help
thinking it would be better outside the thread in a seperate devoted category.
>
>   A common theme is the high visibiity nature of the website hosts.  Just as
we have champions in government, perhaps successful citizen sites need their
own champions - but portrayed in a similar way to celebrity.
>
> Any other sites?
>
> Tom Steinberg <tom@mysociety.org> wrote:
>   On 4/10/07, Sophia Collins wrote:
>> I'm still not entirely clear on the scope of this review and what you're
>> interested in.
>
> There was actually a press release today:
> http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2007/070405_power.asp
>
>> The Guardian article refers to, "permitting civil
>> servants to post information on sites" in the first paragraph. I assume
>> this means government going to where people are talking and joining in
>> that conversation, instead of government setting out it's stall and
>> expecting people to visit?
>
> This is definitely one angle I want to look at. Your story is
> excellent as well. Do you have a specific permalink to the original?
>
>> This example stuck in my mind, but there's obviously lots more. Is that
>> the kind of interaction you're considering? Or are we talking about
>> repackaging of data?
>
> That's part of it too. What formats & licences data is released under
> is definitely in the remit.
>
>> Or government funding grassroots forums? Or all of
>> the above? The Guardian article seems to be pretty vague.
>
> Indeed, all the above.
>
> As for whether you should reply on a blog post, the choice is yours.
> If you do, rememeber to post the link here.
>
> best,
>
> Tom
>
> Member profile for Tom Steinberg:
> http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/tomsteinberg
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/main/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/
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>  Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up
for your freeaccount today.
>
> Member profile for Fraser:
> http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/hendersonfraser
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/main/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/
>
> 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: James Gilmour Date: 2007 Apr 11 13:29 UTC Short link

Sophia Collins > Sent: 11 April 2007 13:08
> I'd add http://thorntree.lonelyplanet.com/ - I'd never go anywhere
> without checking it. Foreign office staff should definitely be
empowered
> to post there when necessary. My blog post mentioning this was at
> http://www.gallomanor.com/2007/03/mumpower.html but it adds little to
> what I've already told you. I get the impression posting on forums is
> regarded with deep suspicion by older/more senior civil servants and
the
> younger ones who get it aren't in a position to challenge that idea.

> And finally, don't forget to consider email lists. I belong to several

> and find them a significant way to keep track of what's happening in
> various fields. Although it is a slightly different ethos and many
(like
> this one) do have public employees posting to them.

You need to be aware that the computer networks of some government
departments, local government departments and commercial organisations
have firewalls, spam filters, ad filters and mal-ware filters that
either block access to some or all external sites completely or block
some of the fancier features of some websites that the web designers
have made essential for the site to function properly.  For example, a
password protected PDF file sent as an attachment on an e-mail message
will not be accepted by the Scottish Parliament computer network because
the virus-checker they use cannot read a password-protected file even if
'accessability extraction' is allowed.

When you have a mission-critical computer network to maintain, I have
some sympathy with these approaches in view of the known activities of
those who, for a variety of different reasons, seek to cause disruption
to such networks and the known stupidity of a very large number of
computer users who take no effective steps to protect their own systems
which are then used to spread viruses or spam or both.  That said,
protection against such threats should not be used as an excuse for
imposing a blanket policy of non-participation, but a practical solution
must be devised and put in place and supported by an appropriate access
policy.
James Gilmour

From: David Wilcox Date: 2007 Apr 11 13:54 UTC Short link

I think Sophia's point is a crucial one - will civil servants be
prepared to get "out there" and engage with people in uncontrolled
spaces?
Experience of offline engagement - come to "our" event, comment on
"our" report - isn't always encouraging ... so this is really radical
stuff.
Thanks Tom for getting out and about. Might we expect a preview
report for commenting?
http://www.designingforcivilsociety.org/2007/04/government_expl.html

From: Ella Taylor-Smith Date: 2007 Apr 11 14:19 UTC Short link

Hi,
Hold on a moment - I'm going international...
I've been looking at a local community website/portal for East Palo Alto
in the U.S.
http://www.epa.net/

One of the forum topics is "Community Resources and City Government" and
this is used by city government to post notices and answer questions.
http://www.epa.net/launch/epabboard/forum?forum_id=68178

-Ella
Ella 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>

http://itc.napier.ac.uk

From: Shane McCracken Date: 2007 Apr 11 15:08 UTC Short link

I think the problem is going to be far beyond technical reasons.  I remember
a story on The Register about evoting pilots
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/09/evoting_pilot/ which irreverently
poked fun at the DCA for not talking about the pilots:

DCA: "No, you can't talk to an official. They don't talk to the media.
That's why there is a press office."

The problem is that Civil Servants are not allowed or don't feel permitted
to comment openly in public spaces.  For example on one well-known
e-democracy mailing list in the last six months there have been just over 50
people posting.  Of those 50, 8 were local government officers, 2 were
elected members and one, just one, was from the DCA.  I'm surprised there
aren't more.

Of course it may just be the case that civil servants don't have time to
post or it may be cultural.  Perhaps though we might hear from them on this
topic?

Now back to work for me...

Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: James Gilmour [mailto:jgilmour@globalnet.co.uk]
Sent: 11 April 2007 14:29
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Public information review

Sophia Collins > Sent: 11 April 2007 13:08
> I'd add http://thorntree.lonelyplanet.com/ - I'd never go anywhere
> without checking it. Foreign office staff should definitely be
empowered
> to post there when necessary. My blog post mentioning this was at
> http://www.gallomanor.com/2007/03/mumpower.html but it adds little to
> what I've already told you. I get the impression posting on forums is
> regarded with deep suspicion by older/more senior civil servants and
the
> younger ones who get it aren't in a position to challenge that idea.

> And finally, don't forget to consider email lists. I belong to several

> and find them a significant way to keep track of what's happening in
> various fields. Although it is a slightly different ethos and many
(like
> this one) do have public employees posting to them.

You need to be aware that the computer networks of some government
departments, local government departments and commercial organisations have
firewalls, spam filters, ad filters and mal-ware filters that either block
access to some or all external sites completely or block some of the fancier
features of some websites that the web designers have made essential for the
site to function properly.  For example, a password protected PDF file sent
as an attachment on an e-mail message will not be accepted by the Scottish
Parliament computer network because the virus-checker they use cannot read a
password-protected file even if 'accessability extraction' is allowed.

When you have a mission-critical computer network to maintain, I have some
sympathy with these approaches in view of the known activities of those who,
for a variety of different reasons, seek to cause disruption to such
networks and the known stupidity of a very large number of computer users
who take no effective steps to protect their own systems which are then used
to spread viruses or spam or both.  That said, protection against such
threats should not be used as an excuse for imposing a blanket policy of
non-participation, but a practical solution must be devised and put in place
and supported by an appropriate access policy.
James Gilmour

Member profile for James:
http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/jamesg

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

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

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: Tom Steinberg Date: 2007 Apr 11 15:25 UTC Short link

Thanks very much to all for responses on this - I didn't know the
talkswindon example, and I hadn't heard about the Palo Alto one for a
long time.

David, the review is being done so quickly that it won't actually have
an interim findings report to put out. However, please don't assume
that that means I'm not going to try out possible recommendations on
you guys :)

From: Angus Whyte Date: 2007 Apr 11 15:34 UTC Short link

A couple of issues come to mind, to follow from James's-

- Any public servant is likely to be wary on the basis that anything
that can be used to hold them to account will be used to hold them to
account, and online forums are more traceable than phone calls, in
person visits or private correspondence. Before anyone says 'but that is
the whole point', fair enough but who is going to put their neck on the
line when they may actually be contradicting the official accountable
line their colleagues boss or some other agency is working out? Perhaps
it is more realistic to expect 'participation' to be restricted to
official PR spokespersons, with all we might expect that to entail.

- Offline 'participation' by officials carries with it a lot of taken
for granted social mores about what is publicly-acceptable behaviour,
for example that those officials should be clearly identifiable as such.
I don't think that is a big issue on forums that are specifically set up
for the purpose e.g. Minnesota model issue-forums (or in government-run
e-consultations), but what about more general online spaces- is an
official-looking email signature or username enough to be confident that
the person claiming to be from the Foreign Office is who they say they
are?

Angus Whyte

-----Original Message-----
From: James Gilmour [mailto:jgilmour@globalnet.co.uk]
Sent: 11 April 2007 14:29
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Public information review

Sophia Collins > Sent: 11 April 2007 13:08
> I'd add http://thorntree.lonelyplanet.com/ - I'd never go anywhere
> without checking it. Foreign office staff should definitely be
empowered
> to post there when necessary. My blog post mentioning this was at
> http://www.gallomanor.com/2007/03/mumpower.html but it adds little to
> what I've already told you. I get the impression posting on forums is
> regarded with deep suspicion by older/more senior civil servants and
the
> younger ones who get it aren't in a position to challenge that idea.

> And finally, don't forget to consider email lists. I belong to several

> and find them a significant way to keep track of what's happening in
> various fields. Although it is a slightly different ethos and many
(like
> this one) do have public employees posting to them.

You need to be aware that the computer networks of some government
departments, local government departments and commercial organisations
have firewalls, spam filters, ad filters and mal-ware filters that
either block access to some or all external sites completely or block
some of the fancier features of some websites that the web designers
have made essential for the site to function properly.  For example, a
password protected PDF file sent as an attachment on an e-mail message
will not be accepted by the Scottish Parliament computer network because
the virus-checker they use cannot read a password-protected file even if
'accessability extraction' is allowed.

When you have a mission-critical computer network to maintain, I have
some sympathy with these approaches in view of the known activities of
those who, for a variety of different reasons, seek to cause disruption
to such networks and the known stupidity of a very large number of
computer users who take no effective steps to protect their own systems
which are then used to spread viruses or spam or both.  That said,
protection against such threats should not be used as an excuse for
imposing a blanket policy of non-participation, but a practical solution
must be devised and put in place and supported by an appropriate access
policy.
James Gilmour

Member profile for James:
http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/jamesg

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

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

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 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.

From: Steven Clift Date: 2007 Apr 11 16:45 UTC Short link

We have some UK participation by civil servants and elected officials
in our local Issues Forums. We'd like to see more.

Examples:

* Brighton and Hove civil servant started this topic on the 2007
elections and includes replies from elected officials:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4UWcG115f17nENPGwABbST

* Roseville (OK from Minnesota) - school official corrects the record
with detailed information on tax rates and a state legislator (state
MP) adds additional clarification:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2CiMltetjVTqeAHzhtIRfX


In the e-campaigning world I call this concept the "digital parade"
where candidates are moving from trying to bring people to their own
website and going to where the people are - MySpace, Facebook, etc.

With government, having clear policies should encourage civil
servants to provide information and links as well as correct the
"factual" record would help. Now that candidates are going to people
online, government will have to follow to remain connected with
citizens.

In a similar vein, we've generated a grant proposal for
"neighbourhood forums" in low income/high immigrant areas of
Minnepolis (we have two neighborhood forums in Bristol and one
emerging in Oxford). I've got the police and libraries to sign on in
support and promote staff participation based on their public service
role - the community policing staff will monitor for public safety
topics and respond when appropriate and the librarians will be asked
to inform discussions (say on "rain gardens") with links to resources
on their shelves or that they know about online. Perhaps folks in UK
might want to help us create a UK version of the grant proposal
linked from here: http://e-democracy.org/nf

I think one of the key ways to make it "safe" for government
interaction with the public online is to create online public spaces
that are "neutral" in context and not for/against a political cause.
A local blog advocating X issue might have an active comment area,
but that might be the least likely place to attract civil servant
participation.

Steven Clift
E-Democracy.Org


^               ^               ^                ^
Steven L. Clift    -   -  -  W: http://publicus.net
Minneapolis    -   -   -  -   E: <email obscured>
Minnesota  -   -   -   -   -   - T: +1.612.822.8667
USA    -   -   -   -     Skype/MSN/Y!/AIM: netclift

Join Democracies Online: http://dowire.org
Start an Issues Forum: http://e-democracy.org/if

From: Jill Sanders Date: 2007 Apr 11 19:36 UTC Short link

Civil servants at the local level loathe public exposure.  They intensely
dislike awkward residents too, who demand things of them that may lead to
public statements or interaction of some kind.  Town halls, I fear, are
largely self-serving places working on behalf of the corporate body of the
council.  At least, this is my experience though it is not popular with
civil servants!  Most local government officers have forgotten that their
borough is full of people to whom the council has responsibilities and who
pay for the council.  It's good to see those citizens talking out there,
though.  We are now rolling out our citizen journalism project, which allows
local people and organisations to publish news direct to the community
website front pages.  This is going down very well and a most interesting
experience.  It relieves our volunteers of the burden of work, streamliines
the process and encourages more participation online with Oncom.  We are
still without funding or support of any kind, however, and keeping going is
a miserable hand to mouth affair.
You will see the citizen journalists' pages - they are accredited and there
is email contact.  We asked the council press office to publish their stuff
on the community news pages.  They refused.
Cheers, Jill, volunteer with www.oncom.org.uk

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Clift" <clift@publicus.net>
To: <ukie@groups.dowire.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Public information review

We have some UK participation by civil servants and elected officials
in our local Issues Forums. We'd like to see more.

Examples:

* Brighton and Hove civil servant started this topic on the 2007
elections and includes replies from elected officials:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4UWcG115f17nENPGwABbST

* Roseville (OK from Minnesota) - school official corrects the record
with detailed information on tax rates and a state legislator (state
MP) adds additional clarification:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2CiMltetjVTqeAHzhtIRfX

In the e-campaigning world I call this concept the "digital parade"
where candidates are moving from trying to bring people to their own
website and going to where the people are - MySpace, Facebook, etc.

With government, having clear policies should encourage civil
servants to provide information and links as well as correct the
"factual" record would help. Now that candidates are going to people
online, government will have to follow to remain connected with
citizens.

In a similar vein, we've generated a grant proposal for
"neighbourhood forums" in low income/high immigrant areas of
Minnepolis (we have two neighborhood forums in Bristol and one
emerging in Oxford). I've got the police and libraries to sign on in
support and promote staff participation based on their public service
role - the community policing staff will monitor for public safety
topics and respond when appropriate and the librarians will be asked
to inform discussions (say on "rain gardens") with links to resources
on their shelves or that they know about online. Perhaps folks in UK
might want to help us create a UK version of the grant proposal
linked from here: http://e-democracy.org/nf

I think one of the key ways to make it "safe" for government
interaction with the public online is to create online public spaces
that are "neutral" in context and not for/against a political cause.
A local blog advocating X issue might have an active comment area,
but that might be the least likely place to attract civil servant
participation.

Steven Clift
E-Democracy.Org

^               ^               ^                ^
Steven L. Clift    -   -  -  W: http://publicus.net
Minneapolis    -   -   -  -   E: <email obscured>
Minnesota  -   -   -   -   -   - T: +1.612.822.8667
USA    -   -   -   -     Skype/MSN/Y!/AIM: netclift

Join Democracies Online: http://dowire.org
Start an Issues Forum: http://e-democracy.org/if

Member profile for Steven Clift:
http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/stevenclift

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

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

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: Tim Anderson Date: 2007 Apr 12 06:55 UTC Short link

I think part of the issue is one of internal culture where policy is supposed
to be determined by politicians who are then responsible for delivery. I have
worked in PR in some councils where most responses should be from elected
members because they are the ones who want to be in the public eye. Others are
happy for officers to comments and be quoted by name for everything except
politically contentious issues or high profile ones. Generally the farther
politicians are from service delivery the more freedom officers have. You may
well get the manager of the local Job Centre talking about unemployment issues
in Norwich and participating in local discussion fora about priorities for
local work. Once you get to national issues you leap up to ministers or senior
civil servants who will take part - if anyone.

To take a local example, there has been a debate in Norfolk about the future of
a closed RAF base with potential use as an asylum seeker detention centre. In
the early days of the debate - before this proposal arrived - there was a very
open debate with members and officers at all levels discussing the proportion
of housing to business land, effects on infrastructure like schools and roads,
environmental issues (can we reuse existing buildings) including some central
government civil servants. Once there was a highly charged political issue the
type of members and officers who participated in the debate became more senior
and controlled. Although it wasn't particularly party political there were
clearly issues where politicians were going to be judged on their response.

I would think that will hold true generally.

-----Original Message-----
From: Whyte, Angus [mailto:A.Whyte@napier.ac.uk]
Sent: 11 April 2007 16:20
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Public information review

A couple of issues come to mind, to follow from James's-

- Any public servant is likely to be wary on the basis that anything
that can be used to hold them to account will be used to hold them to
account, and online forums are more traceable than phone calls, in
person visits or private correspondence. Before anyone says 'but that is
the whole point', fair enough but who is going to put their neck on the
line when they may actually be contradicting the official accountable
line their colleagues boss or some other agency is working out? Perhaps
it is more realistic to expect 'participation' to be restricted to
official PR spokespersons, with all we might expect that to entail.

- Offline 'participation' by officials carries with it a lot of taken
for granted social mores about what is publicly-acceptable behaviour,
for example that those officials should be clearly identifiable as such.
I don't think that is a big issue on forums that are specifically set up
for the purpose e.g. Minnesota model issue-forums (or in government-run
e-consultations), but what about more general online spaces- is an
official-looking email signature or username enough to be confident that
the person claiming to be from the Foreign Office is who they say they
are?

Angus Whyte

-----Original Message-----
From: James Gilmour [mailto:jgilmour@globalnet.co.uk]
Sent: 11 April 2007 14:29
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Public information review

Sophia Collins > Sent: 11 April 2007 13:08
> I'd add http://thorntree.lonelyplanet.com/ - I'd never go anywhere
> without checking it. Foreign office staff should definitely be
empowered
> to post there when necessary. My blog post mentioning this was at
> http://www.gallomanor.com/2007/03/mumpower.html but it adds little to
> what I've already told you. I get the impression posting on forums is
> regarded with deep suspicion by older/more senior civil servants and
the
> younger ones who get it aren't in a position to challenge that idea.

> And finally, don't forget to consider email lists. I belong to several

> and find them a significant way to keep track of what's happening in
> various fields. Although it is a slightly different ethos and many
(like
> this one) do have public employees posting to them.

You need to be aware that the computer networks of some government
departments, local government departments and commercial organisations
have firewalls, spam filters, ad filters and mal-ware filters that
either block access to some or all external sites completely or block
some of the fancier features of some websites that the web designers
have made essential for the site to function properly.  For example, a
password protected PDF file sent as an attachment on an e-mail message
will not be accepted by the Scottish Parliament computer network because
the virus-checker they use cannot read a password-protected file even if
'accessability extraction' is allowed.

When you have a mission-critical computer network to maintain, I have
some sympathy with these approaches in view of the known activities of
those who, for a variety of different reasons, seek to cause disruption
to such networks and the known stupidity of a very large number of
computer users who take no effective steps to protect their own systems
which are then used to spread viruses or spam or both.  That said,
protection against such threats should not be used as an excuse for
imposing a blanket policy of non-participation, but a practical solution
must be devised and put in place and supported by an appropriate access
policy.
James Gilmour

Member profile for James:
http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/jamesg

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

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

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 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.

Member profile for Angus:
http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/anguswhyte

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

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

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.

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: Tim Anderson Date: 2007 Apr 12 07:15 UTC Short link

Hmmm. Not sure I entirely agree here. It is absolutely right that encouraging
people to participate at grass roots level with minimum intervention is the way
to go. In my experience though council officers and the culture they operate in
varies enormously. I can see why the council didn't want a feed from citizen
news pages on the official site (there is a degree of understandable paranoia
about publication being deemed as supporting or agreeing with views) but can't
see why they wouldn't link to them with an appropriate disclaimer.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jill Sanders [mailto:jillmsanders@btopenworld.com]
Sent: 11 April 2007 20:36
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Public information review

Civil servants at the local level loathe public exposure.  They intensely
dislike awkward residents too, who demand things of them that may lead to
public statements or interaction of some kind.  Town halls, I fear, are
largely self-serving places working on behalf of the corporate body of the
council.  At least, this is my experience though it is not popular with
civil servants!  Most local government officers have forgotten that their
borough is full of people to whom the council has responsibilities and who
pay for the council.  It's good to see those citizens talking out there,
though.  We are now rolling out our citizen journalism project, which allows
local people and organisations to publish news direct to the community
website front pages.  This is going down very well and a most interesting
experience.  It relieves our volunteers of the burden of work, streamliines
the process and encourages more participation online with Oncom.  We are
still without funding or support of any kind, however, and keeping going is
a miserable hand to mouth affair.
You will see the citizen journalists' pages - they are accredited and there
is email contact.  We asked the council press office to publish their stuff
on the community news pages.  They refused.
Cheers, Jill, volunteer with www.oncom.org.uk

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Clift" <clift@publicus.net>
To: <ukie@groups.dowire.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Public information review

We have some UK participation by civil servants and elected officials
in our local Issues Forums. We'd like to see more.

Examples:

* Brighton and Hove civil servant started this topic on the 2007
elections and includes replies from elected officials:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4UWcG115f17nENPGwABbST

* Roseville (OK from Minnesota) - school official corrects the record
with detailed information on tax rates and a state legislator (state
MP) adds additional clarification:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2CiMltetjVTqeAHzhtIRfX

In the e-campaigning world I call this concept the "digital parade"
where candidates are moving from trying to bring people to their own
website and going to where the people are - MySpace, Facebook, etc.

With government, having clear policies should encourage civil
servants to provide information and links as well as correct the
"factual" record would help. Now that candidates are going to people
online, government will have to follow to remain connected with
citizens.

In a similar vein, we've generated a grant proposal for
"neighbourhood forums" in low income/high immigrant areas of
Minnepolis (we have two neighborhood forums in Bristol and one
emerging in Oxford). I've got the police and libraries to sign on in
support and promote staff participation based on their public service
role - the community policing staff will monitor for public safety
topics and respond when appropriate and the librarians will be asked
to inform discussions (say on "rain gardens") with links to resources
on their shelves or that they know about online. Perhaps folks in UK
might want to help us create a UK version of the grant proposal
linked from here: http://e-democracy.org/nf

I think one of the key ways to make it "safe" for government
interaction with the public online is to create online public spaces
that are "neutral" in context and not for/against a political cause.
A local blog advocating X issue might have an active comment area,
but that might be the least likely place to attract civil servant
participation.

Steven Clift
E-Democracy.Org

^               ^               ^                ^
Steven L. Clift    -   -  -  W: http://publicus.net
Minneapolis    -   -   -  -   E: <email obscured>
Minnesota  -   -   -   -   -   - T: +1.612.822.8667
USA    -   -   -   -     Skype/MSN/Y!/AIM: netclift

Join Democracies Online: http://dowire.org
Start an Issues Forum: http://e-democracy.org/if

Member profile for Steven Clift:
http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/stevenclift

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

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

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.

Member profile for :
http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/sandersjill

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

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

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.

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: Pete Thomson Date: 2007 Apr 12 07:56 UTC Short link

I think Tim's right about the cultural issues. The traditional position
has been that it's only the politicians and the most senior officers who
offer public comment. Only 20 years or so ago, it was still the practice
in many councils for every outgoing letter to be signed in the name of a
chief officer. Customer service developments, and the use of telephone
and email, have pretty much abolished that - but in many authorities,
talking to the media without authority from the top would still be
frowned on. Participation in public online forums falls into a grey
area, perceived I guess as something in between sending an individual
email and giving an interview to the local radio station. So the culture
doesn't quite know what to make of it, and that leaves a lot of people
uncertain about whether they're allowed to do it. Ages ago I wrote some
guidelines about online participation which I intended to form part of
our internet usage policy, but nobody else seemed to understand the need
for them and they never made it into the final version.

Regards, Peter.

--
Peter Thomson
Policy Officer (e-government), Office of the Chief Executive,
Wolverhampton City Council, Civic Centre, Wolverhampton WV1 1SH, UK
Tel: (+44) 1902 554048   Fax: (+44) 1902 554030   Web:
http://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anderson, Tim [mailto:tim.anderson@norfolk.gov.uk]
> Sent: 12 April 2007 07:56
> To: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Public information review
>
> I think part of the issue is one of internal culture where
> policy is supposed to be determined by politicians who are
> then responsible for delivery. I have worked in PR in some
> councils where most responses should be from elected members
> because they are the ones who want to be in the public eye.
> Others are happy for officers to comments and be quoted by
> name for everything except politically contentious issues or
> high profile ones. Generally the farther politicians are from
> service delivery the more freedom officers have. You may well
> get the manager of the local Job Centre talking about
> unemployment issues in Norwich and participating in local
> discussion fora about priorities for local work. Once you get
> to national issues you leap up to ministers or senior civil
> servants who will take part - if anyone.
>
> To take a local example, there has been a debate in Norfolk
> about the future of a closed RAF base with potential use as
> an asylum seeker detention centre. In the early days of the
> debate - before this proposal arrived - there was a very open
> debate with members and officers at all levels discussing the
> proportion of housing to business land, effects on
> infrastructure like schools and roads, environmental issues
> (can we reuse existing buildings) including some central
> government civil servants. Once there was a highly charged
> political issue the type of members and officers who
> participated in the debate became more senior and controlled.
> Although it wasn't particularly party political there were
> clearly issues where politicians were going to be judged on
> their response.
>
> I would think that will hold true generally.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Whyte, Angus [mailto:A.Whyte@napier.ac.uk]
> Sent: 11 April 2007 16:20
> To: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Public information review
>
>
> A couple of issues come to mind, to follow from James's-
>
> - Any public servant is likely to be wary on the basis that
> anything that can be used to hold them to account will be
> used to hold them to account, and online forums are more
> traceable than phone calls, in person visits or private
> correspondence. Before anyone says 'but that is the whole
> point', fair enough but who is going to put their neck on the
> line when they may actually be contradicting the official
> accountable line their colleagues boss or some other agency
> is working out? Perhaps it is more realistic to expect
> 'participation' to be restricted to official PR
> spokespersons, with all we might expect that to entail.
>
> - Offline 'participation' by officials carries with it a lot
> of taken for granted social mores about what is
> publicly-acceptable behaviour, for example that those
> officials should be clearly identifiable as such.
> I don't think that is a big issue on forums that are
> specifically set up for the purpose e.g. Minnesota model
> issue-forums (or in government-run e-consultations), but what
> about more general online spaces- is an official-looking
> email signature or username enough to be confident that the
> person claiming to be from the Foreign Office is who they say
> they are?
>
> Angus Whyte
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Gilmour [mailto:jgilmour@globalnet.co.uk]
> Sent: 11 April 2007 14:29
> To: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Public information review
>
> Sophia Collins > Sent: 11 April 2007 13:08
> > I'd add http://thorntree.lonelyplanet.com/ - I'd never go anywhere
> > without checking it. Foreign office staff should definitely be
> empowered
> > to post there when necessary. My blog post mentioning this was at
> > http://www.gallomanor.com/2007/03/mumpower.html but it adds
> little to
> > what I've already told you. I get the impression posting on
> forums is
> > regarded with deep suspicion by older/more senior civil servants and
> the
> > younger ones who get it aren't in a position to challenge that idea.
>
> > And finally, don't forget to consider email lists. I belong
> to several
>
> > and find them a significant way to keep track of what's
> happening in
> > various fields. Although it is a slightly different ethos and many
> (like
> > this one) do have public employees posting to them.
>
> You need to be aware that the computer networks of some
> government departments, local government departments and
> commercial organisations have firewalls, spam filters, ad
> filters and mal-ware filters that either block access to some
> or all external sites completely or block some of the fancier
> features of some websites that the web designers have made
> essential for the site to function properly.  For example, a
> password protected PDF file sent as an attachment on an
> e-mail message will not be accepted by the Scottish
> Parliament computer network because the virus-checker they
> use cannot read a password-protected file even if
> 'accessability extraction' is allowed.
>
> When you have a mission-critical computer network to
> maintain, I have some sympathy with these approaches in view
> of the known activities of those who, for a variety of
> different reasons, seek to cause disruption to such networks
> and the known stupidity of a very large number of computer
> users who take no effective steps to protect their own
> systems which are then used to spread viruses or spam or
> both.  That said, protection against such threats should not
> be used as an excuse for imposing a blanket policy of
> non-participation, but a practical solution must be devised
> and put in place and supported by an appropriate access policy.
> James Gilmour
>
>
> Member profile for James:
> http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/jamesg
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/main/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/
>
> 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 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.
>
> Member profile for Angus:
> http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/anguswhyte
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/main/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/
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Group home for UK and Ireland E-Democracy Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/main/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/
>
> 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.
>
> Scanned by MailDefender - managed email security from intY -
> www.maildefender.net
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: This email and files transmitted are confidential and are intended
solely for the use of the intended recipient.  If you are not the intended
recipient, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, you may not copy, disclose, distribute or use it in any unauthorised
manner.  If you have received this email in error please notify us by email to
<email obscured> and then delete it and any attachments
accompanying it.  Please note that Wolverhampton City Council cannot guarantee
that this message or any attachments are virus free or have not been
intercepted and amended.
Any views or opinions expressed within this email are those of the author and
may not necessarily reflect those of Wolverhampton City Council and no
contractual arrangement is intended to arise from this communication.
==============================================================================

From: Jill Sanders Date: 2007 Apr 12 08:13 UTC Short link

The idea was for the council to showcase its news on the community network's
pages to get more viewers, not viceversa, though we do a newsbox that is a
very entertaining and attractive feature for local organisations;  it
updates their websites whenever our news content is republished.
I am speakiing from experience and resigned as a local government officer
because of the navel gazing and adherence to some newly written rulebooks
regardless of real people.
The council reluctantly and belatedly agreed to put links to our councillor
community webpages from the councillor contact details, with a disclaimer of
course.
Best wishes
Jill

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anderson, Tim" <tim.anderson@norfolk.gov.uk>
To: <ukie@groups.dowire.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Public information review

Hmmm. Not sure I entirely agree here. It is absolutely right that
encouraging people to participate at grass roots level with minimum
intervention is the way to go. In my experience though council officers and
the culture they operate in varies enormously. I can see why the council
didn't want a feed from citizen news pages on the official site (there is a
degree of understandable paranoia about publication being deemed as
supporting or agreeing with views) but can't see why they wouldn't link to
them with an appropriate disclaimer.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jill Sanders [mailto:jillmsanders@btopenworld.com]
Sent: 11 April 2007 20:36
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Public information review

Civil servants at the local level loathe public exposure.  They intensely
dislike awkward residents too, who demand things of them that may lead to
public statements or interaction of some kind.  Town halls, I fear, are
largely self-serving places working on behalf of the corporate body of the
council.  At least, this is my experience though it is not popular with
civil servants!  Most local government officers have forgotten that their
borough is full of people to whom the council has responsibilities and who
pay for the council.  It's good to see those citizens talking out there,
though.  We are now rolling out our citizen journalism project, which allows
local people and organisations to publish news direct to the community
website front pages.  This is going down very well and a most interesting
experience.  It relieves our volunteers of the burden of work, streamliines
the process and encourages more participation online with Oncom.  We are
still without funding or support of any kind, however, and keeping going is
a miserable hand to mouth affair.
You will see the citizen journalists' pages - they are accredited and there
is email contact.  We asked the council press office to publish their stuff
on the community news pages.  They refused.
Cheers, Jill, volunteer with www.oncom.org.uk

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Clift" <clift@publicus.net>
To: <ukie@groups.dowire.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [UKIE-EDem] Public information review

We have some UK participation by civil servants and elected officials
in our local Issues Forums. We'd like to see more.

Examples:

* Brighton and Hove civil servant started this topic on the 2007
elections and includes replies from elected officials:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4UWcG115f17nENPGwABbST

* Roseville (OK from Minnesota) - school official corrects the record
with detailed information on tax rates and a state legislator (state
MP) adds additional clarification:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2CiMltetjVTqeAHzhtIRfX

In the e-campaigning world I call this concept the "digital parade"
where candidates are moving from trying to bring people to their own
website and going to where the people are - MySpace, Facebook, etc.

With government, having clear policies should encourage civil
servants to provide information and links as well as correct the
"factual" record would help. Now that candidates are going to people
online, government will have to follow to remain connected with
citizens.

In a similar vein, we've generated a grant proposal for
"neighbourhood forums" in low income/high immigrant areas of
Minnepolis (we have two neighborhood forums in Bristol and one
emerging in Oxford). I've got the police and libraries to sign on in
support and promote staff participation based on their public service
role - the community policing staff will monitor for public safety
topics and respond when appropriate and the librarians will be asked
to inform discussions (say on "rain gardens") with links to resources
on their shelves or that they know about online. Perhaps folks in UK
might want to help us create a UK version of the grant proposal
linked from here: http://e-democracy.org/nf

I think one of the key ways to make it "safe" for government
interaction with the public online is to create online public spaces
that are "neutral" in context and not for/against a political cause.
A local blog advocating X issue might have an active comment area,
but that might be the least likely place to attract civil servant
participation.

Steven Clift
E-Democracy.Org

^               ^               ^                ^
Steven L. Clift    -   -  -  W: http://publicus.net
Minneapolis    -   -   -  -   E: <email obscured>
Minnesota  -   -   -   -   -   - T: +1.612.822.8667
USA    -   -   -   -     Skype/MSN/Y!/AIM: netclift

Join Democracies Online: http://dowire.org
Start an Issues Forum: http://e-democracy.org/if

Member profile for Steven Clift:
http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/stevenclift

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

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

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.

Member profile for :
http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/sandersjill

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

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

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.

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.

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