[open-government] Is it too radical to demand everything?

[Josh Tauberer]

On 09/17/2012 05:42 AM, Ivo Babaja wrote:
> If it is OK with everybody, why such a request is not written down as 
> the ultimate (and at the same time basic) demand?

I looked over some definitions/declarations of openness and was 
surprised that "pro-active" disclosure was not mentioned more. The new 
Declaration on Parliamentary Openness (openingparliament.org) does 
mention it, for instance. It's in bullet #13 of 44 --- not very high up. 
Not saying I disagree with the placement. Just surprised.

It's hard to answer your question because there's no one document that 
describes what everyone wants in the open government movement. We all 
want different things. So there are a lot of documents, and each is 
specialized in a particular way.  For instance, when I write about 
defining open data it isn't necessarily relevant for me to make demands 
on government. Different priorities for different audiences, different 
occasions.

Maybe someone else on the list knows more, but I think you're right to 
notice that there isn't a coherent community around across-the-board, 
pro-active disclosure. I know people have thought about it. Maybe the 
FOI/RTK world is working on it.

But there's a reason not more of us are working on that, and that's 
because from a policy point of view it is basically a non-starter. It's 
too simple. Government record keeping is complicated --- it would be 
impossible to simultaneously publish all data. Not saying it wouldn't be 
great to have, only that advocating for that is not the most effective 
use of time for every open gov advocate.


- Josh Tauberer (@JoshData)

http://razor.occams.info


On 09/17/2012 05:42 AM, Ivo Babaja wrote:
> On 15.9.2012 3:58, Josh Tauberer wrote:
>>> the open data movement must demand from government and public sector 
>>> to publish everything themselves
>>
>> It's not too radical. If you add in basic caveats for security, 
>> privacy, and intellectual property, I think most open gov advocates 
>> would say, yes, in a perfect world, government records should all be 
>> online. That sort of across-the-board transparency is the root of the 
>> freedom of information / right to know movement, which is right now 
>> pretty healthy across the world. People do demand that, and 
>> constitutions these days get written with that in mind. (Success!)
>>
>
> That is exactly my point.
> If it is OK with everybody, why such a request is not written down as 
> the ultimate (and at the same time basic) demand?
>
> Not just "we have the right to know" but "public sector must have 
> obligation to publish".
>
> It is important because it opens up new question: *What this "Public 
> Publishing System" should look like?*
>
> The answer will have to deal with those caveats that you mentioned.
>
> I know it is not a simple question, but I think that it is important 
> topic to consider, along with current wonderful data-opening efforts.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Ivo Babaja

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20120918/f448cf5a/attachment-0001.html>