[@OKau] Qn's from Government re GovHack

Fri May 15 10:13:32 UTC 2015

Looks good but I would just add that the GovHack home page under 'Who Should Come Along?' lists several different skill groups not just developers whereas the FAQ's read as though it is only developers who attend GovHack:
" 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."
Rosie Williams BA (Sociology)________________________________________
 NoFibs.com.au - Open Data Reporter | InfoAus.net - Founder and Developer 

From: stevage at gmail.com
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 15:53:45 +1000
To: okfn-au at lists.okfn.org
Subject: Re: [@OKau] Qn's from Government re GovHack

Thanks Markus, that's what I meant to say - it just came out wrong. :p Seriously, that's a great list and worth digging up in future.
Point 7 is particularly compelling:>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.
Various organisations have approached their first data release with fear and trepidation and been surprised at how friendly the reception has been.

Steve
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:22 AM, 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-au/attachments/20150515/6ad8e38e/attachment-0004.html>