[open-government] Leapfrogging open government

Mon Mar 28 18:42:21 UTC 2016

Anton,

Different in what way?
I don't think there is a "way"....I'm entirely open to what you are saying,
you don't have to reword it for me. For others, it may help to wrap it into
the context of what is happening now, so they can make the connection, and
relate to it/look to the future.
Others will never be accepting of it regardless, and I'm quite positive
there is no turning them around. I'm not saying don't try, but it certainly
is not worth my time.

The options you listed sound great and would certainly build a more
polished and professional foundation. Certainly something to build on.

What effect(s) it will have....I can't tell you. I feel like opengov in the
usa has crawled to a halt, at least in my circles. I'm much more focused on
seeing current and/or short term goals being accomplished than I am working
to end-game goals.

It totally sucks, but that is reality. I could talk about hypotheticals all
day long, but they don't seem to be pushing the needle, actually the
responses I've seen seem to be pushing them away.

tl;dr;
Go for it. Although the environment doesn't seem ready for it, it'll be
great to have when we do need it.

Cheers,
Albert

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Anton Stoychev <antitoxic at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you, Albert. So the narrative should be different to be
> digestible and provoke action.
>
> Different in what way? Should it include concrete proposal, timeline,
> options for implementation? Or it should be written in more formal manner?
>
> Kind Regards,
> Anton
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 3:03 PM, J. Albert Bowden <jalbertbowden at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Agree with Anton here, this is a self-imposed limitation.
>> Also think its incredibly helpful and informative to expose community
>> members to the broader picture; its actually quite baffling to me how many
>> are not aware of anything beyond the scope of opengov. And even then that
>> scope is limited, further complicating and muddying the waters of the
>> community.
>> Granted this is an opengov community, but opengov is merely one of many
>> principles of openness, each of which require the rest to be implemented,
>> before fully realizing its potential.
>>
>> I don't think its healthy as a community to constantly fixate on broad,
>> far-off goals.
>> I also think its not healthy as a community to have distant goals not
>> clearly defined in a narrative all can digest.
>>
>> Albert
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Anton Stoychev <antitoxic at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Josh,
>>>
>>> The evaluation that this is not achievable today is a self-imposed
>>> limitation.
>>>
>>> This also doesn't require all professions and all people to stop what
>>> they are doing right now. So the pause you describe won't exist. The
>>> current way of governance is harmful at a large/global scale which makes it
>>> a good area to leapfrog.
>>>
>>> If that is still unsatisfying as set of arguments, it can be said that
>>> the opposite is also true: If noone tried something different than slow
>>> transitions, we won't have things as mobiles.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>> Anton
>>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2016, 03:04 Josh Tauberer, <tauberer at govtrack.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> we have the chance to t some huge efforts that are currently invested
>>>> into slow transition towards that. Instead we can focus on the further goal
>>>> and be a few steps ahead.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we all stopped doing the things that are achievable today to work
>>>> instead on goals for tomorrow, then we wouldn't ever achieve anything and
>>>> tomorrow would never come.
>>>>
>>>> - Josh Tauberer (@JoshData)
>>>> http://razor.occams.info
>>>>
>>>> On 03/22/2016 07:09 PM, Anton Stoychev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I've been a member of the mailing list for a while but haven't posted
>>>> anything so far. My involvement in OGP has been about its implementation in
>>>> Bulgaria and its capabilities for modernization of the administration.
>>>>
>>>> It would be interesting to know your opinion on a piece of text
>>>> <https://medium.com/juice-romanian-vitamins/it-s-time-to-have-no-countries-b9c976951f44#.pg2909tc5>
>>>> about culture, borders and the harm by them
>>>> <https://medium.com/juice-romanian-vitamins/it-s-time-to-have-no-countries-b9c976951f44#.pg2909tc5>,
>>>> titled "*It's time to have no countries
>>>> <https://medium.com/juice-romanian-vitamins/it-s-time-to-have-no-countries-b9c976951f44#.ghv0c9kcm>*".
>>>> It's closely related to good governance. It is a recent publication,
>>>> preceding the events in Brussels, so it's not provoked by them. It was
>>>> provoked by visible progress in the direction described in the article and
>>>> the reappearing problems in current governance mechanisms.
>>>>
>>>> So. Fantasy / possibility / a-must? How do you find it?
>>>>
>>>> Noticeably, I think the offered is possible and we have the chance to t
>>>> some huge efforts that are currently invested into slow transition towards
>>>> that. Instead we can focus on the further goal and be a few steps ahead.
>>>>
>>>> Some provocation and inspiration:
>>>>
>>>>    - Latest news from BitNation <https://bitnation.co/services/> is
>>>>    that they are working on "a decentralised, open source, and pseudonymous
>>>>    dispute resolution chat platform" - a sovereign blockchain jurisdiction
>>>>    - Blockchain application in Smart Contracts
>>>>    <https://smartcontract.com/> (other implementation also exist)
>>>>    - Updates from the Venus project
>>>>    <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl7Yq8QbPns>
>>>>    - Progress in smart cities' research
>>>>    - Frustration in travelling and being an expat
>>>>    - Propaganda increase, say even presidential rallies
>>>>    - Honor/trust-based startups
>>>>    <https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/videos/698445160296994/?pnref=story>
>>>>    - "The software told me so" - the ecosystem of smart apps, fintech
>>>>    startups working around banking monopoly and the increasing amount of open
>>>>    source projects from businesses create a demand for a collaborative way of
>>>>    remote/online decision making, so sooner or later such will exist
>>>>
>>>> There were some nice discussions over the social networks. I think this
>>>> is a good place to look for opinions as well.
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>> *Anton Stoychev*
>>>>
>>>> *Creating a better way to understand ____ via design and technology*
>>>>
>>>> web:
>>>> <http://www.obshtestvo.bg/>www.obshtestvo.bg
>>>>
>>>> tel: (+40) 073 523 0801 <040735230801>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> open-government mailing listopen-government at lists.okfn.orghttps://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-government
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> open-government mailing list
>>> open-government at lists.okfn.org
>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-government
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> J. Albert Bowden II
>>
>> jalbertbowden at gmail.com
>>
>> http://bowdenweb.com/
>>
>>
>

-- 
J. Albert Bowden II

jalbertbowden at gmail.com

http://bowdenweb.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20160328/cbc58f33/attachment-0003.html>