[@OKau] Qn's from Government re GovHack

Fri May 15 11:46:42 UTC 2015

Thanks Rosie, good point, quite right. Any suggestions for a better term 
or terms?

Number 3 we could just change to 'People'.

Cheers,
Markus

On 15/05/2015 8:13 PM, Rosie Williams wrote:
> 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 <http://nofibs.com.au> - Open Data Reporter | 
> InfoAus.net <http://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 <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150515/73bce285/attachment-0004.html>