[@OKau] Qn's from Government re GovHack

Fri May 15 01:27:10 UTC 2015

Much better response Markus.

It's important to communicate in the language your audience understands &
not scare the horses.

Cheers,

Craig

_________________________________________________

Craig Thomler

http://egovau.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/CraigThomler
http://au.linkedin.com/in/craigthomler
http://www.slideshare.net/CraigThomler
<http://www.slideshare.net/CraigThomler%20>

*Mobile:* 0411 780 194 (*International:* +61 411 780 194)
*Phone:* 02 6161 4508 (*International: *+61 2 6161 4508)
*Skype:* craig.thomler

On 15 May 2015 at 10:22, Markus Buchhorn <markus at intersect.org.au> wrote:

>
> Hi Alisha
>
> While I respect the principles behind SteveB's answers, and agree, I
> suspect they might be a bit confronting to a Departmental rep who is
> already a bit twitchy ;-)
>
> Let me suggest some constructive points, and others can fix/build on them:
>
>  1. If you, the Dept, want to talk with somebody for reassurance, there
> are great people out there, with formally-informed views (e.g. Baden at AusGOAL)
> and also widely-experienced views (e.g. Pia at DTO)
>
>  2. The data used in GovHacks is selected, sub-setted and provided by you,
> the Department. You should already have an understanding of any formal
> risks in their release. Nobody is asking for sensitive data.
>
>  3. The developers involved in GovHack are amazingly grateful for access
> to any data. It is not in their interest to bite the data provider, quite
> the contrary.
>
>  4. Developers want to show the potential value of your data through new
> tools, better presentations,  aggregation with other data, and also the
> discovery/removal of any errors. All of these are likely to be of value to
> you.
>
>  5. Participating increases engagement with many stakeholders, not just
> the developers. They include taxpayers, politicians, other
> departments/agencies, industry, etc.
>
>  6. Nobody expects you to endorse the results, or support them in the
> future, though they would be extremely happy if you did.
>
>  7. We are heading towards an environment where data release is the norm,
> and not-participating will be the exception. Now is a very good time to
> learn about it, in a controlled, friendly and supportive environment.
>
>  8. If you really want a more formal cost/benefit argument about the
> broader open-access agenda, there are many economic studies that support it
> (insert reference to list here, from NickG, ANDS, UK, US, ...)
>
> Is that helpful? I'm happy to help polish/extend them, and I'm sure many
> others here would be too. The trick is to keep them concise and sweet as
> you say.
>
> (I'm tempted to add a zero-eth bullet: "0. Yes, GovHack sounds like a
> confronting activity, but it is meant with much respect for the very
> talented developers working collaboratively with Government" :-) )
>
>
> Tangentially for everyone: I agree, it is probably a useful exercise to
> develop this idea into a boilerplate Q&A document for other agencies with
> similar concerns, for both the GovHack context and the wider agendas.
> Anybody else want to get involved in that? I suspect there are already a
> few similar lists out there.
>
> Cheers,
> Markus
>
>
>
>
> On 14/05/2015 2:11 PM, Alisha Ryans-Taylor wrote:
>
>  Thanks all. J
>
>
>
> So, are there any short, key messages in response to those questions that
> I should send on behalf of GovHack? The discussion is great, but a bit
> challenging to distil into something short and clear for my contact in the
> Dept of Health to pass on to his managers (without feeling confident that I
> would articulate the most important/helpful points).
>
>
>
> Anybody good and short, sweet, clear, and concise (which I’m not brilliant
> at)?
>
>
>
> Warm regards,
>
> *--*
>
> *Alisha Ryans-Taylor* | Code for Australia Fellow | Contractor - Business
> Information Services Branch |
>
> City of Melbourne | Melbourne Town Hall, 90-120 Swanston Street Melbourne
> 3000 |
>
> GPO Box 1603 Melbourne 3001 | M: 0404 313 020 | Twitter: @alisharyansT |
>
> E: alisha.ryans-taylor at melbourne.vic.gov.au | www.melbourne.vic.gov.au
>
>
>
> We value: Integrity | Courage | Accountability | Respect | Excellence
>
>
>
> Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
> email.
>
>
>
> *From:* Pia Waugh [mailto:pia.waugh at gmail.com <pia.waugh at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 14 May 2015 7:44 AM
> *To:* Unname
> *Cc:* rosetta.mills at gmail.com; ruth.pearson8 at gmail.com; Alisha
> Ryans-Taylor; Geoff Mason
> *Subject:* Re: [@OKau] Qn's from Government re GovHack
>
>
>
> Hi Rosie,
>
> This is exactly why govhack is run by volunteers :) Basically people can
> make projects that criticise the government, but don't tend to. Often we
> get projects that use data such as budget data to better understand how
> government spends money. Some departments are mote sensitive to external
> interpretations than others but we have around 15 federal agencies
> involved, 5 state and territory governments and several councils. So they
> are managing the risk just fine. There are no privacy risks because we only
> work with open data. There we always risks and it is up to the department
> to mange their own risks, but the risks are low. By supporting and
> participating in govhack, government agencies aren't endorsing the outcomes
> and they get to choose who win specific gov supported prizes. But there are
> non government supported prizes too.
>
> In summary, there are always risks in doing public engagement and
> community activities. But the benefits have far outweighed the risks for
> many government supporters because the cost of innovation is so high
> through traditional gov means, and govhack provides a friendly, large and
> collaborative environment that brings community, gov and industry together
> for the common good.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Pia
>
> On 13/05/2015 5:41 PM, "Lachlan Musicman" <datakid at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> One of the GovHack/Code for Australia Fellows has been in communication
> with a state employee from the Department of Health and Human Services
> (Tobacco Unit) indirectly as a result of her work within the council.
>
> They seem to be interested in participating in GovHack but have asked her
> the following questions.
>
> I am not really the right person to answer these questions. I don't want
> to ask "do we have canned responses" but I presume these are regular
> questions that people can answer more eloquently than I. Pia?
>
>
>
> Is it possible you could identify any risks and how they are mitigated?
>
> Is there a risk the data could be misused in anyway or potentially
> criticise the Department or government?
> Is there a risk the submissions such as applications or websites could be
> used to criticise the Department or current government.
> Are there any privacy risks?
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> L.
>
>
>
>
>   ------
> let's build quiet armies friends, let's march on their glass
> towers...let's build fallen cathedrals and make impractical plans
>
> - GYBE
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-au mailing list
> okfn-au at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-au
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-au
>
> This email is intended solely for the named addressee.
> If you are not the addressee indicated please delete it immediately.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-au mailing listokfn-au at lists.okfn.orghttps://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-au
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-au
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-au mailing list
> okfn-au at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-au
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-au
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-au/attachments/20150515/b23b9dec/attachment-0004.html>